Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations

CRS Report for Congress
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and
Appropriations
Updated October 19, 2006
Stephen Daggett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
In the week before Congress adjourned for recess on September 30, the House
and Senate passed conference agreements on both the FY2007 national defense
authorization bill, H.R. 5122, and the FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631.
The President signed the appropriations bill into law, P.L. 109-289, on September 29,
and he signed the authorization bill into law, P.L. 109-364, on October 17.
The conference agreement on the appropriations bill provides $436.6 billion for
defense, including $366.6 billion in regular appropriations and $70 billion in
additional appropriations, mainly as a “bridge fund” for operations abroad. The total
of regular appropriations is $4 billion below the Administration request. The Senate-
passed bill provided $9 billion less than the request, which freed that much to add to
non-defense appropriations bills. The White House , however, threatened to veto the
defense bill if reduced defense by more than $4 billion.
In action on other key issues, the appropriations bill –
!rejected the Administration proposal to terminate C-17 cargo aircraft
production after FY2007 and provided funds for 22 aircraft;
!approved a Navy proposal to provide partial funding for 2 DDG-
1000 destroyers – formerly the DD(X) – rather than providing full
funding for just one ship as in the House bill;
!included funds as requested for one T-AKE cargo ship and for 2
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), rather than eliminating T-AKE funds
and procuring only one LCS, as in the Senate bill; and
!slowed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement, with funds to buy 2
rather than the requested 5 aircraft, but did not eliminate FY2007
aircraft procurement funds as had the Senate bill.
On key defense policy issues, the authorization bill
!provided a 2.2% pay raise, as requested, rather than or a 2.7% raise
as in the House bill;
!approved access for all reservists, except Federal employees with
Federal health insurance, to the DOD TRICARE medical insurance
program with a premium of 28% of the cost of the program;
!rejected House language permitting chaplains to use denominational
prayers according to each chaplain’s conscience, but, instead, in
report language, required the Army and Navy to rescind recent
directives on prayer and return to earlier policies;
!agreed to a substantially amended Senate change in the Buy
American Act to allow use of foreign-supplied specialty metals in
U.S.-built systems; and
!did not agree to a Senate provision giving the head of the National
Guard four-star rank and the authority to make independent budget
requests, but assigned these issues to a commission on the reserves.



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 LockwoodDaniel Else7-76217-4996dlockwood@crs.loc.govdelse@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
Edward Bruner7-2775ebruner@crs.loc.gov
Ground ForcesSteven Bowman7-7613sbowman@crs.loc.gov
Andrew Feickert7-7673afeickert@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, MilitaryPatricia Figliola7-2508pfigliola@crs.loc.gov
War PowersRichard Grimmett7-7675rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Status of Legislation................................................2
Facts and Figures: Congressional Action on the FY2007 Defense
Budget Request...............................................3
Overview of the Administration Request...............................9
Highlights of the FY2007 Defense Budget Request...................9
Key Issues in Congress............................................14
Congressional Action on Major Issues................................20
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date................20
Congressional Budget Resolution............................20
FY2007 National Defense Authorization......................21
FY2007 Defense Appropriations.............................21
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of the House Armed
Services Committee Bill...................................21
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of House Floor Action....27
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of the Senate Armed
Services Committee Bill...................................29
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of Senate Floor Action....33
House Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations................39
FY2007 Defense Appropriations – Highlights of the House
Appropriations Committee Bill..............................40
FY2007 Defense Appropriations — Highlights of House Floor Action...42
Senate Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations................44
FY2007 Defense Appropriations — Highlights of the Senate
Appropriations Committee Bill..............................45
Funding Cuts and Caps on Discretionary Spending and on
Emergency Spending..................................45
Other Issues in the Senate Defense Appropriations Bill...........46
FY2007 Defense Appropriations — Highlights of Senate Floor Action...48
FY2007 Defense Appropriations — Highlights of the Conference
Agreement ..............................................56
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of the Conference
Agreement ..............................................59
Appendix A: Additional Tables......................................70
For Additional Reading............................................92
List of Figures
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2000-FY2011,
Excluding Supplementals.......................................11



List of Tables
Table 1A. Status of FY2007 Defense Authorization, H.R. 5122, S. 2766......2
Table 1B. Status of FY2007 Defense Appropriations, H.R. 5631............2
Table 2. FY2007 Department of Defense Appropriations, House and Senate
Action by Bill and Title.........................................5
Table 3. FY2007 National Defense Authorization, House and Senate
Action by Title, H.R. 5122, S. 2766...............................6
Table 4. Congressional Budget Resolution, Recommended National Defense
Budget Function Totals.........................................7
Table 5. Administration Request for National Defense for FY2007,
Budget Authority, Discretionary and Mandatory......................8
Table 6: House Floor Action on Selected Amendments: Defense
Authorization Bill, H.R. 5122...................................28
Table 7: Senate Floor Action on Selected Amendments:
Defense Authorization Bill, S. 2766..............................34
Table 8. Initial House 302(b) Subcommittee Allocations..................40
Table 9. Initial vs. Latest Senate 302(b)Subcommittee Allocations..........44
Table 10: Senate Floor Action on Selected Amendments:
Defense Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5631...........................52
Table 11: Side-by-Side Comparison of House, Senate, and Conference
Action on Major Policy Issues in the FY2007 Defense Authorization
Bill, H.R. 1522/S. 2766........................................61
Table A1. Administration Projection of National Defense Funding,
FY2007-FY2011 .............................................70
Table A2. Proposed Missile Defense Funding, FY2007-FY2011...........71
Table A3. Authorized and Actual Active Duty End-Strength,
FY2004-FY2007 .............................................72
Table A4. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapon Programs:
Authorization ................................................73
Table A5. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapon Programs:
Appropriations ...............................................78
Table A6. Emergency Funding, Authorization and Appropriations..........85
Table A7. Appropriation of Emergency Funds for Procurement:
Line Item Detail..............................................87



Defense: FY2007 Authorization and
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On September 26, 2006, by a vote of 394-22, the House approved a conference
agreement on the FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631. The Senate
approved the agreement on September 29 by a vote of 100-0, and the President
signed the bill into law, P.L. 109-289, on the same day. The bill includes a
continuing resolution to run the rest of the government through November 17, after
Congress returns from its election recess. Also on September 29, the House
approved a conference agreement on the FY2007 national defense authorization bill,
H.R. 5122 by a vote of 398-23. The Senate approved the agreement on September

30 by unanimous consent. The President signed the authorization bill into law, P.L.


109-364, on October 17.


The conference agreement on the appropriations bill provides $436.6 billion in1
new appropriations for defense, including $366.6 billion in regular appropriations
and $70 billion in additional appropriations as a “bridge fund” for operations abroad
and for some other purposes. The total of regular appropriations is $4 billion below
the Administration request. The total amount in the bill was a key issue. The Senate-
passed bill provided $9 billion less than the request, which, in turn, allowed increases
above the Administration request in non-defense appropriations while remaining
within the budget resolution cap on total discretionary spending. But the White
House threatened to veto the bill if it trimmed defense by more than $4 billion as a
means of providing additional funds for non-security-related programs.
The $70 billion in additional funds approved in the conference agreement is $20
billion higher than the $50 billion that each appropriations committee originally
provided. In floor action, the Senate had added $16.2 billion in emergency funding.
Of that amount, $13.1 billion was added by a Stevens-Inouye amendment to provide
funds for the Army and Marine Corps to repair, upgrade, and replace equipment used
in overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate also added $1.8 billion
for border security, $700 million for counter drug operations in Afghanistan, $200
million for enhanced intelligence to track down Osama bin Laden, $65 million for
Predator UAVs, $20 million for peacekeepers in Sudan, and $175 million for wildfire


1 An additional $11.2 billion is counted as part of the bill under budgetary rules agreed to
by the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, and the
Office of Management and Budget. This is the cost of contributions DOD must make to the
military retirement fund to cover the actuarially determined cost of future 65-and-over
retiree medical benefits for current uniformed personnel. These contributions are considered
to be permanent appropriations which count against caps on discretionary spending.

suppression. In the conference agreement, the $20 billion added to the original $50
billion, is mainly to reset Army and Marine units. In all, according to the House
Appropriations Committee, the bill provides over $17.1 billion to fully fund Army
and $5.8 billion to fully fund Marine Corps reset costs. The agreement also provides
$100 million for Afghan counter-drug operations and $200 million for wildfire
suppression, but does not include the other Senate additions.
Key issues resolved in the authorization conference agreement included
whether, as in the House bill, to alter DOD provisions that require non-
denominational prayer, whether, as in the Senate bill, to promote the head of the
National Guard to four-star rank, and whether to approve multiyear procurement of
the F-22 fighter aircraft. The authorization bill also approves Senate amendments to
the Insurrection Act to allow the President substantially expanded authority to used
the armed forces in response to domestic emergencies, allows all off-duty reservists,
except Federal employees with Federal health insurance, to enroll in the TRICARE
health insurance program with a premium or 28% of the program’s cost, and provides
expanded authority for the Defense Department to use its funds for security
assistance to foreign governments.
Status of Legislation
The House and Senate have reached final agreements on the FY2007 defense
appropriations bill, and on the FY2007 national defense authorization bill. Tables

1A and 1B track congressional action on those measures.


Table 1A. Status of FY2007 Defense Authorization,
H.R. 5122, S. 2766
Full CommitteeConference
MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Report ApprovalPublic
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t LawH ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
H.Rept.5/11/06S.Rept.6/22/06H.Rept.9/29/069/30/06P.L. 109-
5/3/06 5/4/06 109-452 396-31 109-254 96-0 109-702 398-23 U.C. 364
5/5/06 5/9/06 9/29/06 10/17/06
Table 1B. Status of FY2007 Defense Appropriations, H.R. 5631
SubcommitteeConference Report
Markup House House Senat e Senat e Conf . Approval Public
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t LawH ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
H.Rept.6/20/06S.Rept.9/7/06H.Rept.9/26/069/29/06P.L. 109-
6/7/06 7/13/06 109-504 407-19 109-292 98-0 109-676 394-22 100-0 289

6/16/06 7/25/06 9/25/06 9/29/06



Earlier in the year Congress began, but never completed, action on the annual
congressional budget resolution. The Senate passed its version of the resolution,
S.Con.Res. 83, on March 16. The House Budget Committee reported its version of
the resolution, H.Con.Res. 376, on March 31, and floor action began on April 6. But
the leadership halted debate in the face of internal Republican opposition to the
measure. On May 18, a compromise was announced, and the House approved the
measure by a vote of 218-210.
There has been no conference agreement on the budget resolution, however. In
the absence of an agreement, on May 18, the House also approved a measure
“deeming” the provisions of its version of the budget resolution, including a cap of
$872.8 billion on total discretionary spending, to be in effect for purposes of
subsequent House action. The “deeming” resolution was included in the rule (H.Res.
818) governing debate on the FY2007 Interior and Environment appropriations bill
(H.R. 5386). The Senate attached a “deeming” measure to the FY2006 supplemental
appropriations bill (H.R. 4939).
In action on related legislation, the House passed the Military Quality of
Life/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, H.R. 5385, on May 19. The bill provides
$58 billion for the Department of Defense, including funds for military construction
and family housing, for some military personnel accounts, for some military
operation and maintenance accounts, and for the defense health program. In the
Senate, the military personnel, O&M, and defense health funds are provided in the
regular defense appropriations bill, and the military construction and family housing
funds are provided in the Military Construction/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.
That bill, also H.R. 5385, was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on
July 20, but has not been taken up on the Senate floor. As reported, it provides $16.3
billion for Department of Defense military construction and family housing.
Facts and Figures: Congressional Action on the
FY2007 Defense Budget Request
The following series of tables show congressional action on defense budget.
Additional details will be added as congressional action proceeds.
Table 2 shows congressional action on the FY2007 appropriations bills that
provide funding for the Department of Defense. These are (1) the defense
appropriations bills in the House and the Senate (H.R. 5631) and (2) the military
quality of life/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill in the House and the military
construction/VA bill in the Senate (both H.R. 5385). The House military quality of
life/VA appropriations bill includes about $42 billion for Military Personnel and for
Operation and Maintenance accounts that are provided in the defense appropriations
bill in the Senate. Table 2 shows the total in these accounts by bill.
The conference agreement on the defense appropriation bill this year follows the
organization of the House-passed bill – last year, the conference followed the Senate.
So the totals shown in Table 2 for the conference agreement do not include amounts
for military personnel, for operation and maintenance, and for defense health that will



be provided in the military quality of live/VA appropriations bill, when it is
completed.
Please note that while this table shows all appropriations for the Department of
Defense, it does not show funding provided in other appropriations bills for defense-
related activities of other agencies. The largest amount of non-DOD defense-related
funding is for Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs, for which the
Administration has requested about $17 billion in FY2007. Funding for DOE
defense programs is provided in the annual energy and water appropriations bill
(H.R. 5427). Other amounts for national defense not show here include FBI
counterintelligence activities financed in appropriations for the Department of Justice
and smaller amounts in other bills.



Table 2. FY2007 Department of Defense Appropriations,
House and Senate Action by Bill and Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
House Sena t e Co nf
FY2006 House House Versus Sena t e Sena t e Versus Versus
Ena c t e d Request P a sse d Request Request P a sse d Request Co nf . Request
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5631
Military Personnel96.086.184.9-1.299.699.0-0.686.4+0.3
Operation and Maintenance122.4122.4120.5-1.9130.1126.3-3.8119.8-2.7
Procurement 75.8 82.9 81.8 -1.1 82.9 81.0 -1.9 80.9 -2.0
RDT &E 71.4 73.2 75.3 +2.2 73.2 73.0 -0.2 75.7 +2.6
Revolving and Management Funds2.22.42.4 2.42.0-0.42.4
Other Defense Programs*22.52.42.4 23.423.90.42.5+0.1
Related Agencies0.70.90.9 0.90.9 0.9
General Provisions-2.20.1-1.9-2.00.1-2.5-2.6-2.2-2.2
Total Regular Appropriations388.9370.4366.3-4.1412.6403.6-9.0 366.4 -4.0
Additional Appropriations for War50.050.050.050.066.216.2 70.0 +20.0
Total with Additional for War438.9420.4416.3-4.1462.6469.87.2 436.4 +16.0
65+ Retiree Medical Accrual**10.711.211.2 11.211.2 11.2 +0.1
Total Regular w/ Accrual399.6381.6377.5-4.1423.8414.8-9.0377.6-4.0
Total w/ War and Accrual449.6431.6427.5-4.1473.8481.07.2447.6+16.0
DOD Programs in Military Quality of Life/VA and Military Construction/VA Appropriations Bills,
H.R. 5385
Military Construction9.612.611.9-0.712.612.3-0.3
Family Housing4.54.14.0-0.14.14.0-0.1
Basic Allowance for Housing13.513.5
Facilities Sustainment6.26.2
Environmental Restoration1.41.4
Defense Health Program21.021.0
Total Department of Defense14.0 58.958.1-0.816.716.3-0.4
Grand Total in Defense and Military Construction Appropriations Bills
Total Regular Appropriations413.6440.5435.6-4.9440.5431.1-9.4
Total With Additional for War463.6490.5485.6-4.9490.5497.37.2
FY2006 Supplemental, June 200667.7 — — — — —
Total With Supplemental531.3
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, House and Senate reports on respective bills, CRS and CBO for Senate floor
action; conference report on the defense appropriations bill, H.Rept. 109-676.
No tes:
*Other Defense Programs include Defense Health, Drug Interdiction, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, and DOD Inspector
General in the Senate bill and all but Defense Health in the House bill. In DOD briefing charts, Chemical Weapons
Demilitarization is shown in Procurement and the other accounts are shown in Operation and Maintenance.
**Annual funding for accrual payments by DOD for age-65-and-over Medicare-eligible military retirees is considered a
permanent appropriation. The amounts to be contributed to military retirement funds for the cost of these benefits are not
technically subject to annual appropriations, but they are scored as DOD discretionary funds. As such, they count against the
defense subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation and against the total amount of discretionary funds available for appropriation.



Table 3 shows congressional action on the House and Senate versions of the FY2007
defense authorization bill by title. It is important to note that the authorization bill
does not directly provide funds for most defense programs (the exception being some
mandatory programs). Rather, it authorizes the appropriation of funds. In the
appropriations bills, Congress may provide more than, less than, or the same as the
amounts authorized to be appropriated, and it may provide funds for programs never
specifically mentioned in authorization bills or associated report language.
Table 3. FY2007 National Defense Authorization,
House and Senate Action by Title, H.R. 5122, S. 2766
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
House Sena t e Co nf.
House- Versus Sena t e Versus Versus
Request P a sse d Request P a sse d Request Co nf . Request
Military Personnel110.8109.8-1.0111.9+1.1110.1-0.7
Operation & Maintenance130.1129.8-0.3129.5-0.6129.0-1.1
Procurement 82.9 84.6 +1.7 85.7 +2.8 84.2 +1.3
RDT &E 73.2 74.1 +0.9 74.3 +1.1 73.6 +0.5
Military Construction12.612.8+0.213.2+0.613.0+0.4
Family Housing4.14.1-0.04.1-0.04.1-0.0
Revolving & Management2.42.5+0.12.40.02.40.0
Other Defense Programs*23.423.6+0.223.4-0.123.8+0.4
Other Military Discretionary0.00.1+0.10.1+0.10.1+0.1
Mandatory Programs1.91.9-0.04.7+2.71.9-0.0
Rescissions/Inflation Savings0.0-1.6-1.6-1.0-1.0-0.8-0.8
Total Department of Defense441.5441.7+0.2448.3+6.8441.5+0.0
Atomic Energy Defense Activities17.016.5-0.516.4-0.616.5-0.5
Other Defense-Related Activities4.84.7-0.04.7-0.04.7-0.0
Total National Defense463.3462.9-0.4469.4+6.2462.8-0.5
Emergency Authorization50.050.00.050.00.070.0+20.0
Total Including Emergency513.3512.9-0.4519.4+6.2532.8+19.5
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: Office of Management and Budget; H.Rept. 109-452, S.Rept. 109-254; H.Rept. 109-702.
*Note: Other Defense Programs include Defense Health Program; Drug Interdiction; Chemical Weapons
Demilitarization; and Office of the Inspector General.



Table 4 shows congressional recommendations for defense budget authority and
outlays in versions of the annual budget resolution — S.Con.Res. 83 as passed by the
Senate and H.Con.Res 376 as passed by the House. These amounts are not binding
on the appropriations committees, however.
Table 4. Congressional Budget Resolution, Recommended
National Defense Budget Function Totals
(billions of dollars)
FY2007* FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
Administration Request
Budget Authority513.0485.2505.3515.3526.1
Outlays527.4494.4494.3507.4522.7
Senate Budget Committee Reported
Budget Authority545.4481.7501.8511.9522.8
Outlays550.5514.8508.1511.2521.9
Senate Passed
Budget Authority549.4483.0502.8512.9523.9
Outlays554.5516.0509.1512.2523.0
House Budget Committee Reported
Budget Authority512.9484.7504.8514.9525.8
Outlays534.9505.5505.9512.6524.9
Sources: Office of Management and Budget; S.Con.Res. 83; H.Con.Res. 376.
*Note: For FY2007, the Administration request includes $50 billion for a planned budget amendment
for overseas operations. The Senate recommended levels for FY2007 assume $82 billion for overseas
operations. The House committee-reported level assumes $50 billion, as in the request.
Table 5 shows the Administration’s FY2007 national defense request, by
appropriations title, separating discretionary and mandatory amounts. The total for
FY2006 includes a $70 billion placeholder for supplemental appropriations. The
final FY2006 supplemental appropriations bill, however, H.R. 4239, which was
signed into law on June 15, P.L. 109-234, provides $67.7 billion for national defense
programs, $2.3 billion less. The total for FY2007 includes a $50 billion placeholder
for a budget amendment for overseas operations. If the $50 billion placeholder is
removed, the total discretionary request for the Department of Defense is $439.3
billion. This was the amount most often referred to in DOD press releases as the
FY2007 Department of Defense request when the budget was released in February.



Table 5. Administration Request for National Defense for
FY2007, Budget Authority, Discretionary and Mandatory
(billions of dollars)
2005 20062007
Actual EstimateRequest
National Defense Discretionary (Function 050)
Department of Defense — Military Discretionary (Subfunction 051)
Military personnel119.7113.5110.8
Operation and maintenance178.6177.7152.0
Procurement 96.6 86.2 84.2
Anticipated funding for the Global War on Terror* 70.050.0
Research, development, test and evaluation68.871.073.2
Military construction7.38.912.6
Family housing4.14.44.1
Revolving, management, and trust funds and other3.84.82.4
Total, Department of Defense — Military478.9536.6489.3
Discretionary
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Subfunction 053)
Department of Energy defense-related activities17.016.215.8
Formerly utilized sites remedial action0.20.10.1
Defense nuclear facilities safety board0.00.00.0
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities Discretionary17.216.416.0
Defense-Related Activities (Subfunction 054)
Federal Bureau of Investigation1.22.32.3
Other discretionary programs2.43.02.2
Total, Defense-Related Activities Discretionary3.75.34.5
Total, National Defense Discretionary499.8558.3509.7
National Defense Mandatory (Function 050)
Department of Defense — Military Mandatory (Subfunction 051)
Concurrent receipt accrual payments1.52.32.4
Research, development, test, and evaluation0.3
Revolving, trust and other DoD mandatory5.00.80.8
Offsetting receipts-1.5-1.6-1.5
Total, Department of Defense — Military Mandatory5.01.51.9
Atomic Energy Defense Activities Mandatory (Subfunction 053)
Energy employees occupational illness compensation0.71.71.0
program and other
Defense-Related Activities Mandatory (Subfunction 054)
Radiation exposure compensation trust fund0.10.10.0
Other mandatory programs0.20.20.3
Total, Defense-Related Activities Mandatory0.30.30.3
Total, National Defense Mandatory6.03.63.3
Total, National Defense (Function 050)505.8561.8513.0
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government,
FY2007, Table 27-1.
*Note: These are placeholder amounts for a request for supplemental appropriations for FY2006 and
for a budget amendment for FY2007, not yet submitted. The final FY2006 supplemental provided
$67.7 billion for national defense programs.



Overview of the Administration Request
On February 6, 2006, the White House formally released its FY2007 federal
budget request to Congress. The request included $513.0 billion in new budget
authority for national defense in FY2007, of which $50 billion was a placeholder for
a later budget amendment to cover costs of overseas military operations, $441.2
billion was for regular operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), $17.0 billion
was for Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons programs, and $4.8 billion
was for defense-related activities of other agencies (see Table 5 above).
The $50 billion placeholder is not intended to cover the full costs of military
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in FY2007. Rather, it is a “bridge
fund” to cover costs in the initial months of FY2007. Remaining costs for the rest
of the year will, if Congress agrees, be covered by a later supplemental appropriations
bill.2
Along with the FY2007 budget request, the Pentagon released the results of the
congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of defense policy.
The year-long QDR was not a budget exercise, but it identified the kinds of military
capabilities that senior DOD officials believe should be emphasized in years to come,
and it endorsed a few budget decisions that were reflected in the FY2007 DOD
request to Congress.
Highlights of the FY2007 Defense Budget Request
Aspects of the Defense Department’s FY2007 request that appear to be of most
immediate concern to Congress include:
(1) The Administration continues to request large amounts for Iraq
and Afghanistan through “additional” or “emergency supplemental”
appropriations not subject to limits on total discretionary federal
spending and not subject to the full congressional authorization and
appropriations review process. In the FY2007 budget, the Administration has,
for the first time, requested part of the funding to carry on military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan before the start of the fiscal year in the form of a $50 billion budget
amendment to the FY2007 request. In this, the Administration has followed
Congress’s lead — Congress provided a “bridge fund” of $25 billion for Iraq and
Afghanistan in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill and of $50 billion in FY2006.


2 On its own initiative, Congress provided a $25 billion bridge fund in the FY2005 defense
appropriations act and a $50 billion bridge fund in FY2006. In each year, the White House
later requested additional supplemental funds. In February 2006, the Defense Department
requested $67 billion for overseas military operations in FY2006 in addition to the $50
billion appropriated last fall and $5 billion for DOD for domestic disaster costs. In the
FY2006 supplemental appropriations act, H.R. 4939, P.L. 109-234, Congress provided $66.0
billion for overseas operations and $1.7 billion for DOD domestic disaster relief and repair.
For a full discussion of the FY2006 supplemental, see CRS Report RL33298, FY2006
Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional Katrina
Hurricane Relief, Paul M. Irwin and Larry Nowels, coordinators.

By submitting a budget amendment, the Administration gains a more direct and
formal voice in proposing how to allocate the additional funds. The Administration
will continue, however, to request more additional funding in an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill to be submitted next year. Both the “bridge fund”
and later supplemental appropriations will be requested over and above proposed
limits on overall discretionary spending.
The key point remains this: Either in the form of a bridge fund or of emergency
supplemental appropriations, the Administration is requesting that additional war
funding not count against restrictive caps on regular annual defense and non-defense
appropriations. War expenditures, however, have become a very large part of total
annual defense spending, and, for that matter, of total defense and non-defense
appropriations. For FY2006, Congress approved a $50 billion bridge fund for war
costs last fall, and, in June of 2006, it approved additional supplemental
appropriations of $66 billion, for a total of $116 billion. A few comparisons may
help put this amount into perspective.
!Regular DOD appropriations for FY2006 were $411 billion, so the
$116 billion for war increases defense funding by 28%.
!In last year’s budget resolution, the FY2006 cap on total “non-
emergency” appropriations, both for defense and for non-defense
programs, was $843 billion, which was subsequently trimmed by 1%
to $835 billion. The $116 billion for war adds 14% to federal
discretionary funding.
!At the end of last year’s budget cycle, Congress imposed an across-
the-board cut of 1% in all appropriations bills, which trimmed
federal spending by $8.4 billion, 7% of the amount it is providing for
war costs.
An equally important point is that DOD requests for “additional” or
“emergency” war appropriations are not subject to nearly the extent of review that
Congress exercises over regular defense spending. The Administration decision to
submit a budget amendment for a bridge fund is, at most, only a limited step in the
direction of greater oversight. The amendment has not been submitted in advance
of House action on the FY2007 defense authorization bill. Moreover, neither
supplemental appropriations requests nor budget amendments are supported by the
kind of detailed budget justification material that Congress expects to be provided
with regular DOD funding requests. In part because of that, there appears to be a
growing sentiment in Congress to the effect that full funding for ongoing military
operations should be considered through the regular, annual defense authorization
and appropriations process.



Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2000-FY2011,
Excluding Supplementals


(2) The regular DOD appropriations request for FY2007 is for $439.3
billion, $28.5 billion above the FY2006 enacted amount, an increase of
7%. Viewed in this way, the FY2007 budget appears to carry on the substantial
defense buildup that has been underway for the past several years. But the story is
a bit more complicated than that. The increase appears so large in part because
Congress cut the FY2006 request by $8.5 billion — a $4.4 billion cut in the regular
process and an additional across-the-board reduction of $4.1 billion at the end of the
appropriations process.3 Moreover, in an effort to stay within tight limits on overall
appropriations for FY2007, the Office of Management and Budget trimmed DOD’s
FY2007 budget by $3.8 billion compared to the amount that was planned last year
for FY2007. Out-year budget projections for the regular defense budget show
spending leveling off to very modest rates of growth. The average increase between
FY2005 and FY2011 is 1.7% per year above inflation, far below the 5% per year
growth between FY2001 and FY2005 (see Figure 1).
That said, when additional and supplemental appropriations for war are
included, total defense spending is continuing to grow. The total increase in defense
between FY2005 and FY2006 will be about $56 billion if Congress approves the
pending FY2006 supplemental. The increase between FY2006 and FY2007 could
be as great.
3 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL32924, Defense: FY2006 Authorization and
Appropriations, by Stephen Daggett.

So, the summary story line might be termed the “tale of two budgets.” The
budget is getting very tight for programs that are funded strictly within the regular
defense budget — military service officials have testified that the congressional cuts
in the FY2006 defense budget are requiring substantial reductions in some
operations. At the same time, supplemental appropriations are soaring, and money
is readily available for programs that are tied to the war effort.
(3) The Administration’s FY2007 request rejects congressional
proposals to increase Army and Marine Corps end-strength and cuts
Air Force and Navy personnel levels. For FY2006 Congress authorized
active duty end-strength of 512,400 for the Army of 179,000 for the Marine Corps.
By the end of FY2007, however, the Defense Department plans to restore Army and
Marine Corps end-strength to the pre-FY2004, pre-Iraq, “base-line” level — 482,400
for the Army, which is 30,000 troops lower than the current authorization, and
175,000 for the Marine Corps, which is 4,000 lower. Many Members of Congress
have urged that the current authorized levels be made permanent in order to ease the
pace of operations on ground forces. The Administration vigorously opposes a
permanent increase, however, arguing that costs are high and that forces can be
organized more efficiently to provide required combat troops.
Meanwhile, the Air Force plans to eliminate at least 40,000 full-time equivalent
positions over the next five years through a mixture of reductions in active duty,
reserve, and civilian personnel. And the Navy is cutting 12,000 active duty personnel
between FY2006 and FY2007. Though no additional Navy cuts have been
announced formally, it is widely expected that the Defense Department will trim an
additional 20,000 or so positions from the Navy over the next few years.
(4) The Administration’s FY2007 request provides funds for 333,000
Army National Guard (ARNG) troops rather than the 350,000 authorized
and reflects a decision to reduce the number of combat brigades in the
ARNG from 34 to 28. The Army has been unable to recruit and retain enough
troops in the National Guard to reach its authorized end-strength. In the FY2007
request, the Army has requested funding only for 333,000 troops, though, after the
budget was released, Army officials said that they would shift money into personnel
and other related accounts if recruitment and retention improves. In its future plans,
however, the Army projects ARNG end-strength of 333,000.
A more controversial issue is the Army plan to reduce the number of new,
modularized ARNG combat brigades. As Army officials explain, the purpose of the
change is to fully man the new brigades within authorized ARNG end-strength and
to fully equip the combat units within available budget constraints. The change will
likely mean that ARNG units in some states that will not, as had been planned, be
outfitted as new, more capable combat brigades, will lose personnel. The units that
remain, therefore, will also likely have less ability to carry out state disaster response
and homeland defense missions. As a result, state governors and some National
Guard leaders have been very critical of the plan.
(5) The FY2007 request includes only a modest 2.2% pay raise for
troops and proposes increases in medical care fees and co-pays for
under-age-65 military retirees. Since 1999, Congress has approved substantial



increases in military pay and benefits. Compared to economy-wide indices,
uniformed military personnel now cost as much as 33% more, above inflation, than
in the late 1990s.4 In the FY2007 budget, the Administration is proposing measures
to rein in the growth of pay and benefits. The proposed 2.2% military pay raise is the
lowest since 1994. And the Administration has proposed increasing fees and co-pays
for under-age-65 military retirees who are eligible for medical care through the
military Tricare program. This is the first proposed increase in medical co-pays since
the current Tricare medical care system for retirees and dependents was established
in 1995.
(6) The FY2007 request proposes a few reductions in major
weapons programs, some of which have been controversial in
Congress. With the Defense Department carrying out its Quadrennial Defense
Review in 2005, many expected some substantial changes in long-term budget
priorities, including some cuts in major weapons programs. The QDR did not,
however, make many far-reaching changes in on-going programs, and only a few
reductions in weapons plans are reflected in the FY2007 budget request. Two have
so far been controversial in Congress —
!A decision to halt procurement of the C-17 cargo plane in FY2007
after buying 180 of the aircraft since the program began in the mid-
1980s; and
!A decision to drop plans to develop and buy engines for the F-35
joint strike fighter from two manufacturers and, instead, just to buy
engines from one company.
(7) The Quadrennial Defense Review did not result in decisions on
major, ongoing defense budget and program-related issues. The official
Department of Defense report on the 2005-2006 Quadrennial Defense Review,5
which was released along with the Administration’s budget request in February,
stated plainly that the year-long QDR exercise was not intended to be a systematic
assessment of major defense programs. Instead, it was designed to provide a vision
of the national security challenges facing the nation and to identify the kinds of
military capabilities that are needed.
True to its word, the QDR report announced very few major program decisions,
though it did mention some. Perhaps the most significant is to add 15,000 special
operations troops, though without increasing overall military end-strength. For the
most part, the QDR report simply endorsed ongoing initiatives, though often with
wording carefully designed to keep options for policy-makers open. The result is to
leave undecided some very far-reaching defense policy issues.
!For the Navy, the QDR report endorsed increasing “green” and
“brown” water capabilities, construction of new prepositioning


4 For a discussion, see CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for
FY2006 and Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.
5 Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February, 2006. Available
at [http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf].

ships, 11 rather than 12 deployable aircraft carriers, construction of
two attack submarines per year at lower than current prices, and the
conversion of a number of Trident II submarine-launched missiles
to carry conventional (non-nuclear) warheads. But the report said
nothing about other naval force issues. Notably, it did not mention
the recently-released Navy shipbuilding plan for a combat fleet of

313 ships. Many question whether that plan is affordable.


!Regarding fighter aircraft acquisition plans in the Air Force, Navy,
and Marine Corps, the QDR report endorsed a revised Air Force
plan to stretch out F-22 procurement, but otherwise did not mention
the number of short-range fighter and ground attack aircraft needed
in the long term. The report put a great deal of emphasis on the need
for long-range, prompt, global strike capabilities. This may appear
to be at odds with plans to continue large investments in shorter-
range strike aircraft that may have limited access to areas of combat
in future conflicts, but the report did not address the issue.
!The report endorsed the Army’s plan to reorganize into more
deployable, modular combat brigades, but notably did not make an
explicit commitment to provide the full funding needed to
modularize all active and reserve combat units as the Army has
planned6. The report also endorsed the capabilities being developed
in the Army’s Future Combat System development program, but,
notably, did not explicitly endorse the program as a whole.
!The report said very little at all about satellites and other space
programs. The only mention of a space program was to endorse an
Air Force plan to restructure the Transformational Communications
Satellite (TSAT) program to incorporate less risky technology. Other
space programs have experienced problems like those in the TSAT
program, but these are not mentioned. Space programs overall have
grown dramatically as a share of the defense budget, and cost growth
in major programs has been pandemic. And a major policy issue is
how to protect space based systems from future threats and whether
the U.S. security will be advanced by developing offensive space
capabilities. The QDR discusses none of these issues.
Key Issues in Congress
Last year, congressional action on the annual defense authorization and
appropriations bills featured extensive debates, first, over policy toward treatment of
military detainees, and, toward the end of the year, over the pace of troop
withdrawals from Iraq. This year, a continued debate over Iraq policy reemerged in
congressional consideration of the FY2006 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R.


6 For an overview of Army modularization, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular
Redesign: Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.

4939). That debate was renewed first in the House on June 15-16, when the
leadership brought up a resolution (H.J.Res. 861) declaring “that it is not in the
national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the
withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.” The House
approved the resolution by a vote of 256-153.
The following week the Senate debated Iraq policy in floor action on the
FY2007 defense authorization bill. On June 22, the Senate rejected two amendments
on Iraq policy, one by Senator Levin calling for a phased reduction of troops to begin
this year (rejected by a vote of 39-60) and another by Senator Kerry calling for
withdrawal of most forces by July 1, 2007 (rejected by a vote of 13-86).
In addition to Iraq policy, other issues have emerged. What follows is a list of
selected issues that have come up as debate about the FY2007 defense budget has
progressed.
!Funding cuts in the regular FY2007 defense appropriations bill:
Last year, Congress trimmed $4.4 billion from the regular FY2006
defense appropriations bill and applied the money to non-defense
appropriations. Later, at the end of the process, Congress trimmed
defense appropriations by an additional $4.1 billion as part of an
across-the-board 1% cut in all appropriations, as an offset for
Katrina-related funding. This year, the Senate took a step to avoid
similar guns versus butter trade-offs in the FY2007 budget by adding
$3.7 billion to the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83) cap on total
discretionary spending. As last year, there appears to a considerable
amount of opposition in Congress to proposed cuts in non-defense
appropriations, and the defense bill may be seen as a source of
offsetting funds because of the amount of money available for
defense in emergency funding for overseas operations.
!Limits on emergency funding: The Senate-passed FY2007 budget
resolution (S.Con.Res. 83) puts a cap of $90 billion on total
emergency funding. War costs, including $50 billion that the
Administration plans to request as an attachment to the regular
FY2007 defense appropriations bill, plus a later emergency FY2007
supplemental request expected next February, together with requests
for funds for Katrina-recovery, bird flu, border security, agricultural
disaster relief, and other purposes, will almost surely exceed the cap
by a substantial amount. If Congress ultimately approves such a cap,
anything above $90 billion would require offsetting rescissions,
including, quite likely, cuts in regular defense funding.
!Providing full funding for overseas operations in regular defense
funding bills: Both last year and the year before, the Senate added
“Sense of the Senate” language to the defense appropriations bill
urging the Administration to request full funding for ongoing
military operations in the regular authorization and appropriations
bills. The Administration did not concur. But there appears to be
more support in Congress for that approach now. On June 14, the



Senate approved by 98-0 an amendment by Senator McCain to
require the President to request funding for Iraq in its regular, annual
budget submission.
!Army and Marine Corps end-strength: The Administration is
proposing ground force active duty end-strengths at the pre-2004
baseline level. Congress added 30,000 to Army and 4,000 to Marine
Corps end-strength in FY2006, and there appears to be a great deal
of support in Congress, particularly, but not only, among Democrats,
for a permanent end-strength increase.
!Funding for Army National Guard end-strength: The FY2007
Army request trims about $500 million from Army personnel
accounts and additional amounts from operation and maintenance
accounts to reflect a troop level of 333,000 in the Army National
Guard rather than the 350,000 authorized. Congress may mandate
a higher force level.
!2.2% pay raise: Every year between 2001 and 2006, Congress
approved an increase in basic pay of ½% above the employment cost
index (ECI), a measure of the average growth of nationwide pay and
benefits. An increase of ECI + ½% was mandated for 2004, 2005,
and 2006 in the FY2004 national defense authorization act (P.L.

108-136). Now that provision has expired, and the normal pay raise,


established in Section 1009 of Title 37, U.S.C., is equal to the ECI.
The Administration, accordingly, has requested a pay raise equal to
the ECI, which, for calendar year 2007, is 2.2%. If approved, that
would be the lowest pay raise since 1994. There is considerable
sentiment in Congress to provide more.
!Increased TRICARE fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees: There
is also considerable sentiment in Congress against the Administration’s
proposed increases in fees and co-pays for TRICARE for retirees. The
Administration argues, however, that rising medical benefits threaten
to drive up military personnel costs substantially, and that concern has
gained some traction in Congress.7
!Flexibility for the Defense Department to provide support to
foreign nations: The Defense Department made a number of
legislative proposals to expand its flexibility to provide various
kinds of support to foreign nations that, in the past, have generally
been provided through foreign assistance programs. Several of these
proposals expand or make permanent temporary measures that
Congress has approved in bills providing funds for operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The most expansive DOD proposal is to permit
the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the Secretary of State,


7 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Fees: Background
and Options for Congress, by Richard Best.

to use up to $750 million of defense funds per year to build the
capacities of foreign militaries to engage in counterterrorist
operations or to participate in or support stability operations in
which the United States is engaged.8
!Funding for National Guard and reserve equipment: Funding for
Guard and reserve units has become a more contentious issue in
recent years, particularly as states look to National Guard units as the
front line in possible homeland defense missions.
!Adding a representative of the Guard and reserve components
to the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Several Senators have sponsored a
bill to establish a 4-star rank reserve officer to serve on the JCS.
The services have opposed such a measure.
!Retiring an aircraft carrier: The Defense Department wants to
reduce the number of deployable aircraft carriers from 12 to 11. Last
year, Congress included a provision in the FY2006 defense
authorization act to prohibit such a reduction. Senator Warner, the
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, now supports
retiring a carrier, but there is still some opposition. The issue was
initially addressed in action on the FY2006 supplemental
appropriations bill, H.R. 4939, when Senator Warner proposed an
amendment to permit retirement of the U.S.S. Kennedy aircraft
carrier. That measure was not approved in the conference agreement
on the bill, however. As a result, the Senate addressed the issue in
the FY2007 appropriation authorization — see below.
!Halting C-17 production: The Defense Department did not request
funds for new C-17 cargo aircraft in FY2007, and instead asked for
funding only to terminate production after 180 aircraft have been
produced. The Air Force, however, included in its FY2007
unfunded priorities list (UPL) a proposal for 7 C-17s as
replacements for aircraft that may be worn out due to excessive
wartime use. Some legislators want to keep production lines open
for the foreseeable future.


8 DOD’s legislative proposals for inclusion in annual defense authorization bills are formally
sent to Congress by the DOD Office of Legislative Counsel. The FY2007 proposals are
posted on the internet at [http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/olc/legispro.html]. The proposal
for authority to build the capacity of foreign military forces is in the third package of
proposals, dated April 13, 2006. In the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L.
109-163, Congress provided one-year authority for DOD to spend up to $200 million to build
the capacity of foreign militaries. DOD’s FY2007 legislative proposal would change the
FY2006 provision in some ways. It would make the authority permanent, it would increase
the maximum funding to $750 million, it would require concurrence of the Secretary of State
rather than of the President, and it would allow the waiver of provisions in other laws that
would otherwise prohibit assistance to specific countries or for specific purposes.

!B-52, F-117, and U-2 retirements: The Air Force has proposed
cutting the number of active B-52s from 94 to 56 and retiring F-117
stealth attack aircraft and U-2 reconnaissance planes. In the past,
Congress has repeatedly rejected Air Force proposals to retire B-52s.
!Stretching out F-22 procurement: The Air Force has requested
stretching out F-22 production almost until F-35 procurement
begins. The financing mechanism that it has proposed, however,
violates long-standing DOD and Office of Management and Budget
policy that requires full funding of complete end-items of equipment
in annual appropriations for procurement programs. The stretch-out
will increase total procurement costs, even though the Air Force
wants to negotiate a multi-year contract for the remaining
production. In the past, Congress has rejected Air Force proposals
that violate the full funding policy, though it has supported
incremental funding for more costly Navy ships.9
!Eliminating funds to develop a second engine supplier for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: DOD has proposed eliminating
development of an alternate engine for the F-35. This would save
about $1.7 billion in development costs through FY2011, according10
to the Air Force, but it would also eliminate the benefits of ongoing
competition between engine producers. Congress has held several
hearings on the issue. Even senior DOD officials testifying on the
matter have acknowledged being unenthusiastic about the proposal.
!A new refueling aircraft for the Air Force: While studies have
found that current KC-135 refueling aircraft remain reliable, the Air
Force wants a new tanker, arguing that possible corrosion of KC-135
air frames is a danger. Most recently, DOD has approved an initial
request for information from industry about tanker options, the first
step in acquiring a new aircraft.11
!Converting Trident II missiles to carry non-nuclear warheads:
The Quadrennial Defense Review placed a new, high priority on
capabilities to strike targets promptly at long range. In the short
term, DOD is proposing to convert several Trident II missiles to
carry non-nuclear warheads for rapid strike missions.12 Congress


9 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding
Policy — Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and Stephen
Daggett.
10 Jon Steinman and Tony Capaccio, “Pentagon Plans To Scrap F-35 Backup Engine, Cut
Costs,” Bloomberg.com, Dec. 29, 2005.
11 Megan Scully, “Air Force Launches Latest Effort To Replace Aging Tankers,” National
Journal Congress Daily PM, Apr. 25, 2006
12 For a thorough discussion and extensive background on the program, see CRS Report
(continued...)

has balked at providing the funds requested for the program until it
can address key questions. In addition, beginning some time after

2015, DOD is proposing to build a new, long-range strike system,


which could be a manned or unmanned bomber.
!Satellite and other space program acquisition: For the past
several years, Congress has expressed its displeasure with large cost
growth and extensive schedule delays in a number of DOD space
programs. Congress has cut funds substantially and mandated
restructuring of some programs, including the Transformational
Communications Satellite (TSAT) and Space Radar programs. Press
accounts have also reported large changes in the highly classified13
Future Imagery Architecture program. The Administration has
announced a plan to restructure the TSAT program to rely on less14
risky technology. The continuing issue for Congress is whether
recent changes in space programs have reduced risk sufficiently and
how fast new programs should proceed.
!Missile defense funding and testing: Missile defense remains the
largest acquisition program in the defense budget. Congress has
been reluctant to cut funding in the past, though it has trimmed some
programs and defense committees have expressed concern about the
testing program. The Missile Defense Agency now deploying
ground-based interceptors in Alaska though the deployed system has
not been tested as an integrated whole. One issue for Congress may
be whether to tie funding to the test program.
!Acquisition reform: Last year, Congress approved a measure
intended to improve tracking of cost growth in weapons programs
by requiring that the Defense Department report changes compared
to original estimates of the costs rather compared to periodically
rebaselined program estimates. The result has been to show a
substantial number of acquisition programs with cost growth
exceeding or approaching levels that would trigger a program review
under the requirements of the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. Last


12 (...continued)
RL33067, Conventional Warheads For Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf. Also see Michael R. Gordon, “Pentagon Seeks
Nonnuclear Tip For Sub Missiles,” New York Times, May 29, 2006, pg. 1.
13 Andy Pasztor, “U.S.’s Lofty Plans For Smart Satellites Fall Back To Earth: Big Delays
and Cost Overruns Give Washington Pause; Technical Setbacks Loom; Reconsidering 1970s
Designs,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 2006, pg. 1.
14 The Government Accountability Office raised some questions about the restructured
program — Government Accountability Office, Space Acquisitions: DOD Needs Additional
Knowledge as it Embarks on a New Approach for Transformational Satellite
Communications System, GAO-06-537, May 24, 2006, available on line at
[ h t t p : / / www.ga o.gov/ c gi -b i n / get r p t ? GAO-06-537] .

year Congress rejected, however, a requirement that programs with
excessive cost growth be reevaluated compared to alternatives.
Congressional Action on Major Issues
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date
Congressional Budget Resolution. In March, Congress began action on
the annual congressional budget resolution, but did not reach a conference agreement.
In its place both the House and the Senate approved measures “deeming” a cap of
$827.8 billion on total discretionary funds to be in place. For amounts recommended
for national defense in the House and Senate resolutions, see Table 4 above.
The Senate Budget Committee reported its version of the budget resolution on
March 10, and the full Senate approved the measure, S.Con.Res. 83, with
amendments, on March 16. The committee recommended a level of defense
spending about $3.7 billion below the Administration request. In floor action, the
Senate adopted amendments that added $4 billion to the recommended defense total.
The Senate also approved an amendment by Senator Lott to add $3.7 billion to the
enforceable cap on total discretionary funding. This was intended to avoid cuts in
defense appropriations as offsets for higher levels of non-defense spending.
The Senate measure also put a limit of $90 billion on total emergency funding
in FY2007, which is substantially below the amount that appears likely to be
requested to finance ongoing military operations and domestic disaster-response
commitments. This effort in the Senate to place constraints on emergency spending
may become a major issue when Congress takes up an expected FY2007
supplemental appropriations request early in calendar year 2007.
The House Budget Committee reported its version of the budget resolution,
H.Con.Res. 376, on March 31. The committee measure recommended the
Administration-requested level of defense spending. The leadership did not bring
the measure to the floor in April in the face of internal Republican opposition. In
May, however, Republicans agreed on a measure that may provide room for a
substantial increase in funding for some domestic discretionary programs while
officially still adhering to the Administration’s proposed cap on total discretionary
spending. The House passed the revised measure on May 18 after rejecting several
alternative budget resolutions. The House resolution includes a cap only on non-
defense emergency funding.
In the end, the House and Senate did not reach a conference agreement on the
budget resolution. In its place, both the House and the Senate passed measures
“deeming” all or parts of their different resolutions to be in effect for purposes of
subsequent action on appropriations bills. The House deeming measure was attached
to House Resolution 818, approved on May 18, which was the rule for floor
consideration of the Department of the Interior appropriations bill. The House
deeming language adopted the House-passed budget resolution in its entirety. The
Senate deeming measure was attached to the FY2006 emergency supplemental



appropriations bill, H.R. 4939, P.L. 109-234, which was signed into law on June 15,
2006. The Senate deeming language adopted only Sections 401 and 402 of the
Senate-passed budget resolution. Section 401 established caps on regular
appropriations and Section 402 permitted additional emergency appropriations for
specified circumstances and within specified limits.
FY2007 National Defense Authorization. The House Armed Services
Committee marked up its version of the FY2007 defense authorization bill, H.R.
5122, on May 3, and the House passed the measure on May 11. Highlights of the
committee’s bill and of floor action follow.
The Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the bill,
S. 2766, on May 4 and reported it on May 9. Floor action in the Senate began on
June 12, and the Senate passed by measure on June 22. Highlights of the
committee’s bill and of floor action are discussed below. Also Table 3, above,
shows the amounts authorized in each version of the defense authorization bill by
title. Table A4 in the Appendix to this report compares House and Senate authorized
funding for selected major weapons programs.
The House approved a conference agreement on the bill on September 29, and
the Senate approved it on September 30.
It is important to note that the defense authorization act does not provide
funding for most defense programs, only the appropriations acts do. The
appropriations acts may provide more than, less than, or the same as the amounts
authorized for various programs; may provide money for programs not authorized,
including new starts of programs; and may put restrictions on the use of funds that
are not in the authorization or that are at odds with provisions in the authorization.
FY2007 Defense Appropriations. The House Appropriations Committee
marked up its version of the FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631, on June
13, and the full House debated and approved the measure on June 20. The Senate
Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the bill on July 20, and the full
Senate began debate on the bill on August 1 and finally approved the bill on
September 7. A conference agreement on the bill was announced on September 21,
reported on September 25, and approved in the House on September 26 and in the
Senate on September 29. Table 2, above, shows funding provided in the bill and in
the Military Quality of Life/VA appropriations bill in the House and in the Military
Construction/VA bill in the Senate.
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of the House
Armed Services Committee Bill
Among the very broad range of issues that the House authorization bill
addressed a few major points stand out. One is that the House Armed Services
Committee appeared to have put somewhat more emphasis than DOD on maintaining
current military capabilities than on pursuing long-term defense transformation. This
was particularly true for some programs in which the risk of delays and cost growth
in weapons development appears high.



The committee seemed more inclined to support the current Army
modularization program, for example, than to continue investing increasing amounts
in the Future Combat System. Similarly, the committee slightly trimmed higher risk
missile defense technologies in favor of more immediately deployable systems. And
the committee continued, as it did in past years, to cut funding for satellite programs
that may be seen as reaching too far ahead with technologically risky approaches,
though cuts in the Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) and the Space
Radar were not nearly as large as congressional cuts in the past two years.
Another key point is that the committee supported larger Army, Marine Corps,
and Army National Guard end-strength than the Administration wants. This may
have very large long-term budget implications.
Also, as in the past, the committee was reluctant to support proposed cuts in
weapons programs. It did not agree to halt production of the C-17 cargo aircraft, for
example, and it restored funds to develop an alternative, second engine supplier for
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The committee also did not fully support Administration proposals to rein in the
cost of personnel pay and benefits, and it added a substantial new health benefit for
reservists. The committee increased the proposed military pay raise from 2.2% to

2.7%, it rejected the DOD proposal to reduce health care costs by increasing under-


65 retiree medical fees and co-pays, and it made all reservists, except federal
employees covered by the government health insurance program, eligible to enroll
in the TRICARE medical insurance program with a fee of 28% of the cost. The
committee did approve one measure to increase co-pays for some prescription drug
purchases.
Significantly, the Committee did not approve a number of Administration
proposals to give regional combatant commanders greater authority and resources
to build the capabilities of foreign military forces. The Senate Armed Services
Committee, in contrast, approved most of the Administration’s proposals, although
with some restrictions.
Finally, the committee slowed down two programs that might be seen to have
negative international diplomatic consequences — one to develop a laser that might
be used as an anti-satellite weapon and the other a high-profile Administration
proposal to convert some Trident II missiles to carry conventional (non-nuclear)
warheads.
Highlights of committee action include:
!$50 billion bridge fund for overseas operations: The committee
approved $50 billion in emergency funding for costs of military
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in FY2007. In
FY2006, total costs of overseas operations were almost $120 billion,
so average monthly $12 billion. If that rate continues, the bridge
fund will cover costs for the first five months of FY2006 — that is,
through January, 2007. Additional funds will then be needed to
cover costs for the remaining seven months of the year.



!Ground force end-strength: The committee bill increased Army
end-strength by 30,000 (to 512,400), and Marine Corps end-strength
by 5,000 (to 180,000). The bill also authorizes funding for an end-
strength of 350,000 for the Army National Guard, 17,000 above the
request. End-strength may be a major dispute between Congress and
the Administration this year.
!Pay raise: The bill provided a pay raise of 2.7% for uniformed
personnel, rather than the 2.2% requested.
!Tricare fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees: The bill rejected
increases in retiree fees and co-pays through December 31, 2007 and
established a task force to consider ways to control DOD medical
costs.
!Tricare for reservists: The committee added an amendment in full
committee markup to allow all reservists — except federal
employees eligible for the government health insurance system —
to enroll in Tricare by paying 28% of the cost of the program (the
same cost share as federal employees pay). Last year, in the
conference on the FY2006 authorization bill, Congress rejected a
similar Senate amendment. Instead, Congress made Tricare
available, with a fee of 50% of the cost, to reservists who were
unemployed or who did not have access to employer-provided health
insurance. The committee action is especially significant because
the House, for the first time, approved Tricare for reservists in its
version of the defense authorization — the Senate approved it for the
past two years.
!Budget scoring of TRICARE-for-Life costs: In the FY2001
national defense authorization act, P.L. 106-398,Congress made
over-65 military retirees eligible to receive medical care through the
DOD TRICARE program as a supplement to Medicare. This has
proved to be an expensive increase in benefits. In FY2007, the DOD
budget includes more than $11 billion for contributions to the
Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to cover the actuarially
determined cost of future benefits for current uniformed personnel.
In the FY2005 defense authorization, P.L. 108-375, Congress
approved a measure intended to count those costs not as expenses of
the Defense Department, but as costs to the general treasury. The
provision expressed the sense of Congress that the shift in costs
should not reduce the defense budget, but should, instead, permit an
increase in funding for weapons programs and other defense
priorities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), however,
continued to score the contributions as discretionary funds in the
Department of Defense budget, though as permanent rather than as



annual appropriations.15 OMB also urged the chairmen of the House
and Senate Budget Committees to direct the Congressional Budget
Office to score the contributions in the same way, and both chairmen
agreed. In its version of the FY2007 authorization, the House
Armed Services Committee included a provision directly mandating
that the costs of TRICARE-for-Life contributions not be scored as
part of the DOD budget after FY2007.
!Death gratuity for federal civilian personnel: The bill provided
the same death gratuity for civilian personnel killed in support of a
military operation as for uniformed personnel. The FY2006
National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-163) increased the
military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000.
!Funding for readiness: The committee objected to cuts in ship
steaming days, flying hours, and depot maintenance and shifted $856
million from other programs in service operation and maintenance
accounts to finance increases in these readiness-related activities.
!Army Future Combat System development: The committee
expressed concern about cost growth, schedule delays, and the long-
term affordability of the FCS program, cut $326 million from the
$3.7 billion requested, and mandated a formal DOD review of
program with a go/no go decision to be made by the end of 2008.
!Army modularization: The committee expressed concern about the
affordability of the Army’s program to build a new modular brigade-
centered force structure in view of potentially competing costs of the
FCS and of resetting the force after Iraq. The committee added
funds for M-1 tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades, saying
that these programs were required to support modularization. It also
required the Army to provide a long-term funding profile.
!Guard and reserve equipment: The committee added $318 million
for Army National Guard (ARNG) equipment to support its addition
of 17,000 to ARNG end-strength.
!Navy shipbuilding: The committee added $400 million in advance
procurement to support building two Virginia-class submarines in
FY2009, rather than the one now planned. The Navy has objected
on the grounds that it will require too much money in FY2009 for
submarines at the expense of other programs. The committee also
mandated a submarine fleet of 48 boats, which is what the Navy
currently plans. The committee approved the same amount of
funding that the Navy requested for DD(X)/DDG-1000 destroyer


15 For OMB’s rationale, see Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives:
Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2006, Chapter 6, pp. 422-425, on line at
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ budget / f y2006/ pdf / s pec.pdf ] .

procurement, but allocated all the funds to buy one ship rather than
split the funding between two ships. This is of concern to some
shipyard proponents, who want to begin providing funding to two
shipyards. Last year, the committee had proposed eliminating the
DD(X). Notably, the committee rejected an amendment in the full
committee markup by Representative JoAnne Davis to provide
advance funding for common long-lead items for three new aircraft
carriers. Though the committee appears to support the Navy’s 313
ship plan, it does not seem ready to lock in funding for some aspects
of the Navy program.
!F-22 procurement profile: The committee rejected the Air Force
plan for incremental procurement of the F-22 and added $1.4 billion
in FY2007 ($2 billion was requested) to cover the full cost of buying

20 complete aircraft.


!F-35 alternate engine and development concurrency: The
committee rejected the Air Force proposal to halt development of an
alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and added $408
million for second engine R&D. The committee also trimmed $241
million from long-lead funding for aircraft to be procured in
FY2008, citing excessively concurrent development and
procurement in the program.
!C-17 procurement: The committee added $300 million for three C-
17s in Title IX of the bill, which authorizes emergency funding for
overseas operations. The committee also required the Air Force to
operate at least 299 heavy-lift cargo aircraft. So the committee
would mandate at least seven more C-17s, rejecting the
Administration’s plan to terminate C-17 production after FY2007.
!B-52 and U-2 retirements: The committee prohibited any B-52
retirements until a replacement capability is available (which is not
planned until some time after 2015) and prohibited retirement of any
U-2s unless DOD certifies that the aircraft are not needed to mitigate
any reconnaissance gaps identified in the Quadrennial Defense
Review.
!Missile defense: The committee cut a net total of $185 million from
missile defense R&D. It added $20 million for ground-based mid-
course defense (GMD) testing and $40 million for Navy ship-based
interceptor systems. It cut $100 million from the boost-phase
Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program, $56 million for activating
a third GMD site in Europe since no site has been agreed to, $65
million from the multiple kill vehicle program, and $41 million for
a high-altitude airship sensor program. The committee also
prohibited expenditure of $200 million for the GMD program until
the system has completed two successful intercept tests. The
committee also included a policy provision requiring a report on the



purpose, costs, vulnerability, and international diplomatic
implications of space-based interceptors.
!Space systems: The committee cut $80 million from the
Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) program and
$30 million from the Space Radar, reflecting continued
congressional concern about technical risks in both programs. The
committee provided $20 million and established a new office to
promote development of new, low-cost, rapidly deployable satellites.
!Anti-satellite weapons: The committee included a policy provision
that prohibits the use of funds to develop laser space technologies
for anti-satellite weapons. This provision may be a response to Air
Force development of such capabilities at a laser and optics test
facility in New Mexico.16
!Trident II missile conversion: The committee included a policy
provision requiring consultations with allies about the Quadrennial
Defense Review decision to convert Trident II missiles to carry
conventional warheads.
!Information technology funding cut: The committee cut $341
million from DOD information technology programs, which total
$31 billion, as one means of offsetting increases in other programs.
!VH-71 Presidential helicopter funding cut: The committee
trimmed $39 million from the program due to development delays.
!Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs: The
committee required the Energy Department to submit a report on
plans to transform the nuclear weapons production complex and
specified a number of policy objectives.
!Cooperative threat reduction with the former Soviet Union: The
committee cut $35 million for a U.S. supported Russian system to
convert plutonium to non-weapons-grade fuel because of concerns
that the system could, in fact, produce more plutonium. And the
committee cut another $115 million from $290 million requested for
another plutonium conversion technology.
!Acquisition of programs with large cost growth: The committee
approved an amendment in full committee markup that would
require DOD to allow competing contractors to make challenge bids
for work on programs that exceed critical cost growth ceilings —
currently 25% growth over original estimates.


16 William J. Broad, “Administration Conducting Research Into Laser Weapon,” New York
Times, May 3, 2006.

!DOD support for foreign nations: The committee included in the
bill a DOD proposal to allow up to $200 million a year to be used
for logistical support of foreign nations engaged in combined
military operations with the United States and to permit DOD to
provide equipment temporarily to foreign military forces in
combined operations. It did not include the DOD proposal to use
defense funds to build the capacity of foreign militaries for
counterterrorism or stability operations, as the Senate Armed
Services Committee did (see below for a discussion), nor did it
approve other, related Administration proposals.
!Provisions restricting acquisition of foreign-made items in
defense acquisition: As it has in the past, the House Armed
Services Committee included a number of provisions in its version
of the authorization bill to limit defense acquisition of foreign-made
goods. One provision, Section 812, would prohibit defense
contracts with a foreign company that has received government
subsidies. Another, Section 831, would prohibit procurement of a
specialty metal or item critical to national security unless it is
reprocessed, reused, or produced n the United States. Section 832
would establish a board to identify items critical to national security.
!Prohibition on procurement of items from companies that
provide defense goods to China: The House committee also
included a provision, Section 1211, that would prohibit defense
purchases from any company that provides material on the U.S.
Munitions List to China.
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of House Floor
Action
On May 9, the House Rules Committee considered almost 100 proposed floor
amendments to the authorization bill. In an initial rule on the bill, it permitted just
eight of them, and in a second rule, permitted 27 more — 12 as part of three en bloc
amendments and another 15 amendments that were debated separately. Democrats
objected to the Rules Committee’s refusal to permit several amendments, including
an amendment by Representative Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the Armed
Services Committee, that would have reversed a measure in the committee bill that
increased co-pays for some prescription drug purchases.
Perhaps the most high profile amendment to pass (by a vote of 252-171) was a
proposal by Representative Goode to permit the Secretary of Defense to assign
military personnel to support the Department of Homeland Security in border
protection. Mr. Goode has offered a similar amendment for the past several years,
and before that, Representative Traficante perennially offered a similar measure. The
amendment has often passed in the House but has never been accepted in the final
conference agreement. This year, there was an extensive floor debate. And after its
approval, the President proposed a program to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops
to support border operations.



The House repeated another perennial debate over an amendment by
Representatives Andrews, Davis (CA), Sanchez (CA), and Harman to permit
privately funded abortions for U.S. military personnel or their dependents at military
hospitals overseas. It was rejected by a vote of 191-237.
The House also rejected, by a vote of 124-301, an amendment by Representative
Tierney to cut $4.7 billion from the Missile Defense Agency budget and allocate the
funds to other defense priorities.
And the House rejected, by a vote of 202-220, a motion by Representative
Salazar to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to report back a measure
that includes an amendment to change current procedures under which Survivor
Benefit Plan benefits are reduced. Under current law, benefits to survivors of those
who die while in service are reduced by the amount of Veterans Affairs benefits.
Other amendments permitted by the rule were all approved by voice vote. One
measure that passed was to require a study of the health impact of past ocean
dumping of chemical weapons.17 In general debate on the bill, both Democrats and
Republicans on the Armed Services Committee repeated lauded the committee bill
as a bipartisan measure that was approved in the committee by a vote of 62-1.
Table 6 summarizes House floor action on selected amendments.
Table 6: House Floor Action on Selected Amendments:
Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 5122
SponsorPurpose/Congressional Record Page ReferenceOutcome
AndrewsRequires a study to determine effects of oceanAgreed,
disposal of munitions (pp. H2447-48).voice vote
Andrews, forLifts the current ban on privately funded abortions atRejected,
Davis (CA),U.S. military facilities overseas (pp. H2448-51,191-237
Harmon, H2466-67).
Sanchez (CA)
TannerExpresses a Sense of Congress that the Army shouldAgreed,
consider converting to six-month deployments in Iraqvoice vote
and Afghanistan (p. H2453).
Franks (AZ)Transfers $1 mn to provide health care for IraqiAgreed,
children (pp. H2467-68).voice vote
McDermottDirects a comprehensive study of the health effects ofAgreed,
exposure to depleted uranium munitions (pp. Pagesvoice vote
H2531-32)
Lewis (KY)Provides that no more than 20% of a serviceAgreed, in
member’s paycheck can be garnished to recoveren bloc
overpayments through no fault of the service memberamendment,
(pp. H2537-40).voice vote


17 For a discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RL33432, U.S. Disposal of Chemical
Weapons in the Ocean: Background and Issues for Congress, by David Bearden.

Taylor (MS)Requires DOD to equip 100% of U.S. militaryAgreed,
vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan with IED jammersvoice vote
(pp. H2541-42).
GoodeAuthorizes the Secretary of Defense to assignAgreed,
members armed services to border security (pp.252-171
H2526-28, H2542-43).
TierneyReduces missile defense agency funding from $9.3 bnRejected,
to $4.47 bn, prohibits deployment of space-based124-301
interceptors (pp. H2532-37, H2543-44).
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of the Senate
Armed Services Committee Bill
The Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the defense
authorization, S. 2769, on May 4. A few themes stand out in the markup.
One is that the Senate committee approved 30,000 more troops than requested
for the Army and 5,000 more for the Marine Corps and also authorized 350,000
troops for the Army National Guard (ARNG), 17,000 above the number for which
the Army requested funding. The House also approved the same, higher end-strength
for ground forces. So Congress did not agree with Administration plans to reduce
active ground forces to the pre-Iraq level.
The Senate committee also undertook a number of initiatives to strengthen
government-wide capabilities to engage in counterterrorism and stability operations.
One potentially far-reaching initiative is to agree to an Administration proposal to
expand the authority of regional military commanders to train and equip foreign
military forces and to provide humanitarian and other assistance to foreign nations.
These activities have traditionally been managed by the State Department under legal
authorities that include, among other things, human rights conditions. In bills
funding operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress has temporarily provided some
of this authority, but the Administration wants Congress to write it into permanent
law. The committee restricted funding for the most far-reaching measure to two
years, saying that the program it should be regarded as a pilot project with an
assessment to follow. The committee also required consultations with ambassadors
and did not agree to allow waivers of human rights and other restrictions on
assistance.
The Senate committee appeared more supportive of the Army Future Combat
System (FCS) than the House committee, and provided the full $3.7 billion requested
for the program. The committee did, however, mandate a review of the program,
including an independent cost estimate of the program itself and of all associated
Army programs. If the most recent Army cost estimates for the FCS appear unstable,
Congress may consider ending or substantially restructuring the program.
Highlights of the committee markup include:



!Total funding: The Committee authorized $517.7 billion for
defense discretionary programs, including $50.0 billion in
emergency funding overseas operations and $467.7 billion in budget
including authority for DOD, DOE and other non-emergency
programs. The total is $4 billion above the request and above the
House authorization.
!Army and Marine Corps end-strength: The committee authorized
end-strengths of 512,400 for the Army, 30,000 above the request,
and of 180,000 for the Marine Corps, 5,000 above the request.
!Army National Guard end-strength: The committee also approved
an end-strength of 350,000 for the ARNG, 17,000 above the request,
and stipulated that, if the Army fails to recruit and retain enough
personnel to meet the authorized level, and money saved may be
used only to procure ARNG equipment.
!Military pay raise: The committee approved the requested pay raise
of 2.2% rather than the 2.7% raise the House authorized.
!TRICARE fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees: As did the
House, the Committee rejected increases in retiree TRICARE fees
and co-pays. The Committee also required the Government
Accountability Office to carry out a full audit of DOD health care
costs, including comparisons of the Administration’s proposed fee
increases with increases in federal civilian health insurance fees.
!Flexibility for DOD to support foreign nations for
counterterrorism operations: The Senate committee agreed to a
number DOD’s proposals to allow regional combatant commanders
flexibility to use DOD funds to train and equip foreign militaries and
to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to foreign
governments in support of counterterrorism operations, though with
some amendments. In particular, the committee agreed to make
available $200 million per year for the next two years, rather than
$750 million per year indefinitely, to build the capabilities of foreign
militaries. The committee specified that no more than $50 million
per year could be used by any one regional combatant commander,
and required detailed consultations with U.S. ambassadors. The
committee also required the President to develop a plan to better
coordinate interagency counterterrorism practices. With the
appropriations committees cutting foreign operations funding for the
State Department and AID, the Defense Department is, in effect
taking on many roles that the State Department formerly carried on.
!Detainee treatment: The committee required an official
government-wide coordinated legal opinion on whether specified
interrogation techniques constitute cruel and inhuman treatment.



!Use of armed forces for domestic activities: The committee
proposed amendments to the Insurrection Act that would make it
easier for the President to employ the armed forces to respond to
domestic emergencies, such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
!UAV policy: The committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
develop a comprehensive policy on UAVs and to give UAVs a
preference in developing new systems.
!Navy shipbuilding: The committee added $1.5 billion to the
shipbuilding request for a total of $12 billion. Increases include
accelerating LPD procurement, increased advance procurement
funds for the CVN-21 carrier and the LHA(R) amphibious ship. The
committee included $50 million in advance procurement funding for
long-lead items for three new CVN-21-class carriers, a measure that
the House committee specifically rejected in a vote in the full
committee markup.
!Permitting a reduction from 12 to 11 deployable aircraft
carriers: The committee bill includes a provision repealing last
year’s requirement that the Navy maintain 12 deployable carriers.
If approved this would allow retirement of the USS Kennedy.
!Continued C-17 production: As in the House bill, the committee
bill rejects the DOD proposal to terminate C-17 production. The
Senate bill authorizes funds for 2 aircraft in FY2007 and advance
procurement for continued production later.
!Army Future Combat System (FCS) funding: As opposed to the
House, the Senate committee authorized the full $3.7 billion
requested for FCS development. The committee also, however,
required a review of the program, including an independent cost
estimate, though not with a view to a go/no go decision, as the
House mandated.
!Readiness: The committee used the $50 billion emergency “bridge”
fund as a means of adding funds to regular service accounts to
correct some readiness-related shortfalls. The committee added
$515 million in the emergency funds, for example, for Navy
operations, $231 million for Army operations, and $106 million for
Marine Corps operations. So, in effect, the committee is
ameliorating constraints on the regular service budgets by adding
funds for regular military operations to the emergency fund.
!Acquisition reform: The committee approved several measures to
reform defense acquisition procedures, though none nearly so far-
reaching as the House committee measure to recompete projects
with excessive cost growth. One Senate committee measure is to
align the tenure of program managers with the progress of their



programs and another to require that incentive payments be more
directly linked to acquisition outcomes.
!Land exchanges to build buffers around military facilities: The
Defense Department has long been concerned about the
encroachment of civilian development on military facilities. The
Senate committee approved a measure to allow DOD to exchange
excess land for other land that would be a buffer for military sites.
!Cooperative threat reduction with former Soviet states: In
contrast to the House authorization, the Senate committee made no
reductions in the $1.7 billion requested for Department of Energy
nonproliferation programs (which finance plutonium purchases and
reprocessing, for example) or the $372 million for the Department
of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction program.
!R&D science and technology funding target: Congress has
required that the Defense Department invest 3% of the overall
budget in basic science and technology (S&T) R&D programs.
DOD has perennially fallen short of that target. The Senate
committee included a provision requiring annual growth of 2% per
year above inflation in S&T accounts.
!Missile defense funding: The Senate committee approved the full
$9.3 billion requested for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) R&D
programs (see Table A2 for details of the request), but, like the
House, shifted funds away from longer-term, more risky programs
to near term projects. The committee added $200 million for
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) flight testing and $100
million for the Navy interceptor system. It cut $200 million from the
$406 million requested for the boost-phase Kinetic Energy
Interceptor.
!Space systems: The committee expressed support for DOD’s
restructuring of the Transformational Communications Satellite
(TSAT) program, but trimmed $70 million from the program (an 8%
cut) saying that it could not be executed. The committee also cut
$66 million (a 24% cut) from the Space Radar program and
expressed concern about the lack of a cost sharing agreement with
the intelligence community.
!Long-range strike/Trident II missile conventional warhead: The
committee expressed support for DOD’s plan to develop prompt
global strike capabilities, and provided the full $127 million
requested to convert Trident II missiles to carry non-nuclear
warheads. But, like the House committee, the Senate committee was
concerned about the international diplomatic issues and prohibited
expenditure of more than $32 million on conversion until the
Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of State,
provides a report on the matters at issue.



!B-52 retirements: The committee prohibited the proposed
retirement of B-52 bombers until the Air Force reports on force
requirements, but also approved a measure that (1) permits the
retirement of up to 18 B-52H aircraft, (2) requires that remaining B-
52Hs all be equipped with the specific upgrades, and (3) says the
committee expects no additional B-52H retirements.
!F-35 Joint Striker Fighter alternative engine: Like the House, the
Senate committee added $400 million to continue development of
an alternate second engine for the F-35.
!F-35 schedule delays: The committee cut $1.2 billion from F-35
procurement funds due to schedule delays.
!F-22 funding: Like the House, the Senate committee rejected the
Air Force plan to stretch out F-22 production and to provide funding
incrementally rather than financing the full cost of deployable
aircraft in the year for which funding is requested. The committee
added $1.4 billion for full funding for the requested 20 F-22s.
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of Senate Floor
Action
The Senate began floor consideration of its version of the defense authorization
bill, S. 2766, on June 12. On June 15, the Senate began a debate over Iraq policy.
By a vote of 93-6, the Senate agreed to a motion by Senate Minority Leader Reid to
table an amendment by Senator McConnell, SA 4269, requiring the President to
establish a schedule for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq by December 31,
2006, leaving only troops needed to stand up Iraqi security forces. Senator
McConnell brought up the measure that was originally authored by Senator Kerry,
though Senator Kerry himself had not offered it, to force a debate on the matter.
Later, on June 21 and 22, the Senate considered two other Iraq policy
amendments, one by Senator Levin to require that troop reductions begin this year
and another by Senator Kerry requiring that most troops be withdrawn from Iraq by
July 1, 2007. The Senate rejected both measures on June 22.
The Senate considered one other measure related to the war, an amendment by
Senator McCain, SA 4242, to require the President to request funding for ongoing
military operations with the regular federal budget request submitted in February of
each year (approved by a vote of 98-0 on June 13). For the past two years, the Senate
has approved amendments by Senator Byrd expressing the Sense of the Senate urging18
this, but the Administration has continued to request funding in supplementals. In
the past, in bill signing statements Presidents have, on several occasions, rejected as
unconstitutional, legislative provisions that direct the Administration to include


18 See Section 8138 of the FY2005 defense appropriations act, P.L. 108-287, and Section

8117 of the FY2006 defense appropriations act, P.L. 109-148.



particular programs or activities in budget requests. Administrations have,
nonetheless, sometimes adhered to such congressional requirements. In the
conference report on the FY1996 defense appropriations act, P.L. 104-61, Congress
required the Administration to request funding for Southwest Asia operations in the
regular FY1997 defense request, though it did so not in the bill, but only in report
language. The Clinton Administration agreed and requested funding for ongoing
operations in Southwest and Bosnia in its FY1997 request.19 The McCain
amendment, like the Byrd amendments to the FY2005 and FY2006 defense
appropriations bills, would mean that the full cost of ongoing military operations —
almost $120 billion in FY2006 — would be considered along with the rest of the
federal budget at the start of next year’s Congress.
Table 7 briefly reviews Senate floor action on selected amendments.
Table 7: Senate Floor Action on Selected Amendments:
Defense Authorization Bill, S. 2766
Sponsor/Purpose/Congressional Record Page ReferenceOutcome
Number
June 14, 2006
Lautenberg/To prohibit increased retail pharmacy co-payments,Agreed
Stabenowpages S5837, S5839-40.voice vote
#4205
Dorgan #4230To eliminate fraud and abuse and improve competition inTabled
Federal contracting, pages S5845-47, S5852-53,55-43
S5854-57, S5861.
McCainTo require budgeting for ongoing military operations inAgreed
#4242regular requests, pages S5859-61, S5862-65.98-0,
June 15, 2006
FeingoldTo strengthen the Special Inspector General for IraqAgreed
#4256Reconstruction, pages S5914-17.voice vote
BidenTo state the policy of the United States on the nuclearAgreed
#4257programs of Iran, pages S5917, S5921-2299-0
Warner/To repeal the statutory requirement in place sinceAgreed
LevinFY1985 that the Defense Department submit an annualvoice vote
#4280report on Allied Contributions to the Common Defense,
page 5933
InhofeTo modify the American Servicemembers’ ProtectionAgreed
#4284Act of 2002 to permit certain military cooperation withvoice vote


and aid to nations that have not exempted U.S. troops
from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
page 5936.
19 For a discussion of precedents for funding operations in regular or in supplemental bills
from Korea on, see CRS Report RS22455, Military Operations: Precedents for Funding
Contingency Operations in Regular or in Supplemental Appropriations Bills, by Stephen
Daggett.

Sponsor/Purpose/Congressional Record Page ReferenceOutcome
Number
LugarTo repeal restrictions on funding for chemical weaponsAgreed
#4285demilitarization programs in Russia under thevoice vote
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, page S5936.
SantorumTo authorize assistance for pro-democracy programs andRejected
#4234activities inside and outside Iran and to enhance the45-54
Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, pages S5917-21.
WarnerTo amend Buy American Act provisions regardingAgreed
#4286acquisition of certain speciality metals, page S5936.voice vote
McConnellTo require the withdrawal of United States Armed ForcesTabled
#4265from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit,93-6
pages S5927-29.
FeingoldTo provide for the redeployment of United States forcesWithdrawn
#4192from Iraq by December 31, 2006, pp. S5913-14.
June 16, 2006
SessionsTo require a report on reporting requirements applicableAgreed
#4295to the Department of Defense, pages S5995-96.voice vote
Obama/To require the use of competitive procedures for FederalAgreed
Coburncontracts worth over $500,000 related to hurricanevoice vote
#4254recovery, subject to existing exceptions, pages S5995-96.
June 20, 2006
McConnellTo affirm the Iraqi Government position of no amnestyAgreed
#4272for terrorists who have attacked U.S. forces, pages64-34
S6110-17.
Nelson (FL)/To express the sense of Congress that the Government ofAgreed
MenendezIraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have97-19
#4265attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed
Forces of the United States, page S6117
Ensign/ReidTo provide for expansion of the Junior Reserve Officers’Agreed
#4308Training Corps program, pages S6117-18 voice vote
Bond/LeahyBond/Leahy) Amendment No. 4271, to increase theAgreed
#4271grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from 3voice vote
to 4 stars and to enhance the Chief’s authority to over
certain budget requirements, pages S6117, S6118-19
EnsignTo authorize the temporary use of the National Guard toAgreed
#2352provide support for border security along the southernvoice vote
land border of the United States, pages S6117, S6119-20
EnsignTo require a report on technologies to defeat the threat toAgreed
#4354military rotary wing aircraft posed by portable airvoice vote
defense systems and rocket propelled grenades, pages
S6117, S6120
JeffordsTo provide for 2 programs to authorize the use of leaveAgreed
#4215by caregivers for family members of certain individualsvoice vote


performing military service, pages S6117, S6121-22

Sponsor/Purpose/Congressional Record Page ReferenceOutcome
Number
Warner/To increase authorized FY2006 general transfer authorityAgreed
Levinfrom $3.75 to $5 billion, Pages S6117, S6122voice vote
#4355
Warner/To authorize additional emergency supplementalAgreed
Levinappropriations for FY2006, pages S6117, S6122voice vote
#4356
ThuneTo require a report on the future aerial training airspaceAgreed
#4217requirements, pages S6117, S6122 voice vote
WarnerTo require a report on the desirability and feasibility ofAgreed
#4360joint officer promotion selection boards, pages S6117,voice vote
S6122
DorganTo establish a special committee of the Senate toRejected
#4292investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts for44-52
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, pages S6108-10
Frist(To Amendment No. 4322), to amend title 18, UnitedWithdrawn
#4323States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines
in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of
parents in abortion decisions, page S6105
June 21, 2006
KennedyTo provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage,Withdraw
#4322pages S6191-S6203after vote of
52-46
EnziTo promote job creation and small business preservationWithdrawn
#4376in the adjustment of the Federal minimum wage, pagesafter vote of
S6191, S6203-0445-53
KerryTo require the redeployment of United States ArmedRejected
#4442Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in13-86
Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their
own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror,
pages S6324-35
LevinTo state the sense of Congress on the United StatesAgreed
#4320policy on Iraq, pages S6324, S633598-1
Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on theAgreed
bill, page S6335 voice vote
HutchisonTo include a delineation of the homeland defense andAgreed
#4377civil support missions of the National Guard andvoice vote
Reserves in the Quadrennial Defense Review, page
S6336
HarkinTo require semiannual reports on efforts to investigateAgreed
Modifiedand prosecute cases of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq,voice vote
#4266Afghanistan, and throughout the war on terror, pages
S6346, S6347
InhofeTo require annual reports on United States contributionsAgreed
#4495to the United Nations, pages S6346, S6347 voice vote
Reid ModifiedTo appoint a coordinator for policy toward North KoreaAgreed
#4307and require reports to Congress, pages S6346, S6347-48voice vote



Sponsor/Purpose/Congressional Record Page ReferenceOutcome
Number
Lott ModifiedTo make funds available for the Arrow ballistic missileAgreed
#4326defense system, pages S6346, S6348 voice vote
AllardTo provide for an independent review of the organizationAgreed
#4497and management of the Department of Defense forvoice vote
national security in space, pages S6346, S6349
CantwellTo require reports on the diversion of equipment fromAgreed
Modifiedreserve units, pages S6346, S6350 voice vote
#4202
MartinezTo give priority in allocating replacement equipment toAgreed
#4500states that have suffered a natural disaster, pages S6346,voice vote
S6350
Menendez/To require a plan to replace equipment withdrawn orAgreed
Lautenbergdiverted from the reserve components for Operation Iraqivoice vote
#4441Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, pages S6346,
S6350
FeingoldTo require an annual report on the amount of theAgreed
#4502acquisitions made by the Department of Defense fromvoice vote
outside of the United States, pages S6346, S6351
McCain #4503To require an annual report on foreign military sales andAgreed
direct sales to foreign customers of significant militaryvoice vote
equipment manufactured inside the United States, pages
S6346, S6351
Graham/To expand the authority of the Secretaries of the militaryAgreed
Nelson (NE)departments to remit or cancel indebtedness of membersvoice vote
#4504of the Armed Forces, pages S6346, S6351-52
ReidTo modify the effect date of the termination of theAgreed
#4197phase-in of concurrent receipt of retired pay and veteransvoice vote
disability compensation for veterans with
service-connected disabilities rated as total by virtue of
unemployability, pages S6346, S6354
ChamblissTo reduce the eligibility age for receipt of non-regularAgreed
#4365military service retired pay for members of the Readyvoice vote
Reserve in active federal status or on active duty for
significant periods and to expand eligibility of members
of the Selected Reserve for coverage under the
TRICARE program, pages S6346, S6355-56, S6373-7
McCainTo name the Act after John Warner, a Senator fromAgreed
#4241Virginia, pages S6346, S6356 voice vote
Coburn #4371To improve the provisions relating to the linking ofAgreed
award and incentive fees to acquisition outcomes, pagesvoice vote
S6346, S6356
BidenRelating to military vaccination matters, pages S6346,Agreed
#4244S6356-57 voice vote
CoburnTo reform the Department of Defense’s Travel SystemAgreed
Modifiedinto Pay-For-Use-of-Service System, pages S6370-73,voice vote


#4491S6376

Sponsor/Purpose/Congressional Record Page ReferenceOutcome
Number
Coburn #4370To require the Secretary of Defense to report on andAgreed
classify congressional earmarks of funds available to thevoice vote
Department of Defense, pages S6374, S6376
ChamblissTo authorize multiyear procurement of F-22A fighterAgreed
#4261aircraft and F-119 engines, pages S6336-45, S6376-7770-28
SessionsTo provide, with an offset, additional funding for missileAgreed
#4471defense testing and operations.98-0
Warner #4520To require a report before taking steps to reduce theAgreed
number of Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballisticvoice vote
Missile from 500 to 450, pages S6377-78
CantwellTo provide for a study of the health effects of exposureAgreed
#4374to depleted uranium, pages S6377-78voice vote
BidenTo ensure payment of United States assessments forAgreed
#4458United Nations peacekeeping operations in 2005, 2006,voice vote
and 2007, pages S6677-78
Clinton #4264To enhance the services available to members of theAgreed
Armed Forces returning from deployments to assist themvoice vote
and their family members, in transitioning to civilian life,
pages S6377, S6379-81
BayhTo add an independent panel as part of the QuadrennialAgreed
#4489Defense Review, pages S6377, S6381-82voice vote
FeingoldTo require the President to develop a comprehensiveAgreed
#4526strategy toward Somalia, pages S6377, S6382 voice vote
FeingoldTo require a report on the feasibility of establishing aAgreed
#4527United States military regional combatant command forvoice vote
Africa, pages S6377, S6383
McCain/To ensure proper education, training, and supervision ofAgreed
Warnerpersonnel providing special education services forvoice vote
#4434dependents of members of the Armed Forces under
extended benefits under TRICARE, pages S6377, S6383
AkakaTo transfer custody of the Air Force Health Study assetsAgreed
Modifiedto the Medical Follow-up Agency, pages S6377, S6383 voice vote
#4393
Warner/To require the Defense Department to submitAgreed
LevinSupplemental and Cost of War Execution reports, pagesvoice vote
#4529S6377, S6384
ReedTo provide that acceptance by a military officer ofAgreed
#4311appointment to the position of Director of Nationalvoice vote
Intelligence or Director of the Center Intelligence
Agency shall be conditional upon retirement of the
officer after the assignment, rages S6377, S6384
Reid ModifiedTo require reports on the implementation of the DarfurAgreed
#4439Peace Agreement, pages S6377, S6385 voice vote



Sponsor/Purpose/Congressional Record Page ReferenceOutcome
Number
ClintonTo require that Congress be apprised periodically onAgreed
#4361implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement, pagesvoice vote
S6377, S6386
LevinTo make available an additional $450,000,000 forAgreed
#4533RDT&E Defense-wide and provide an offsettingvoice vote
reduction for a certain military intelligence program,
pages S6377, S6386
VitterTo authorize prepositioning of Department of DefenseAgreed
#4534assets to improve support to civilian authorities, pages voice vote
S6377, S6386
DomeniciTo require annual reports on the expanded use ofAgreed
#4451unmanned aerial vehicles in the national airspace system,voice vote
pages S6377, S6387
Burns/DoleTo provide for the enhancement of funeral ceremoniesAgreed
#4538for veterans, pages S6377, S6388voice vote
BidenTo provide that not funds may be used to establish aAgreed
#4423permanent U.S. military base in Iraq, or to exercisevoice vote
control over the oil resources of Iraq, pages S6377,
S6388
AllardTo require an independent review of the organization andAgreed
#4366management of the Department of Defense for nationalvoice vote
security in space, pages S6377, S6389
KerryStating the Sense of Congress that the President shouldAgreed
#4204convene an international summit o promote avoice vote
comprehensive political agreement in Iraq, pages S6377,
S6389
ObamaTo require a report on Air Force plans for theAgreed
#4541realignment of aircraft, weapons systems, and functionsvoice vote
at active and Air National Guard bases as a result of the

2005 round of defense base closure and realignment,


pages S6377, S6390
House Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations
Ultimately, the total amount provided for national defense in the regular
appropriations bills (not including emergency appropriations) is determined by the
allocation of funds among appropriations subcommittees. Under Section 302(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the annual congressional budget resolution
allocates a specific amount of discretionary budget authority to the appropriations
committees. Under Section 302(b) of the Budget Act, the appropriations committees
are required to report back on the allocation of the total to the subcommittees.
The House-committee-passed FY2007 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 376,
approves a total of $872.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is $475 million
below the Administration request, and the resolution allocated that amount to the
appropriations committee under Section 302(a) of the Budget Act. The Senate-passed



budget resolution approves $877.0 billion in discretionary spending, $3.7 billion above
the Administration request, and allocates the total to the appropriations committee.
On May 4, the House Appropriations Committee reported its initial
subcommittee allocations under Section 302(b) of the Budget Act. Table 8 shows
the committee action. It is important to note that these allocations may be revised
periodically as congressional action on the appropriations bills proceeds.
The initial House allocations trim $4.0 billion from the defense subcommittee,
compared to the Administration request, $824 million from the Military Quality of
Life/VA subcommittee, and $2.4 billion from the foreign operations subcommittee.
These cuts, compared to the request, in defense and foreign affairs allow increases,
again compared to the Administration request, mainly in Labor-HHS appropriations
and homeland security appropriations. Last year, Congress trimmed $4.4 billion
from DOD programs in the regular appropriations bills. The initial House allocations
appear to follow the same approach.
Table 8. Initial House 302(b) Subcommittee Allocations
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Allo ca t io n
FY2006 FY2007 Versus
Ena c t e d Request Allo ca t io n Request
Agriculture 16.8 17.3 17.8 +0.5
Defense 358.3 381.4 377.4 -4.0
Energy and Water Development30.229.530.0+0.5
Foreign Operations20.723.721.3-2.4
Homeland Security30.331.032.1+1.1
Interior/Environment 25.9 25.5 25.9 +0.4
Labor, HHS, Education141.1137.8141.9+4.1
Legislative 3 .8 4.2 4 .0 -0 .2
Military Quality of Life/VA85.095.594.7-0.8
Science, State, Justice, Comm57.259.759.8+0.1
Transportation, Treasury, HUD64.167.667.8+0.2
Total 302(a) Allocation833.3873.3872.8-0.5
Source: House Appropriations Committee.
FY2007 Defense Appropriations – Highlights of the House
Appropriations Committee Bill
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the
FY2007 defense appropriations bill on June 7, and the full committee marked up the
bill, which became H.R. 5631, on June 13. Among the committee’s decisions, a few
themes stand out.
First, in accordance with the committee’s 302(b) allocations, the committee
approved a total $377.6 billion in the bill, $4.1 billion below the Administration
request. The committee made about $2 billion of the cuts in “General Provisions”
of the bill. Of these cuts $823 million are in rescissions of prior year funds (amounts



identified by the committee in cooperation with the Defense Department), $949
million in revised inflation estimates, and $100 million in savings from foreign
currency fluctuations. These are perennial sources of savings in appropriations bills.
They have generally been used, however, to offset congressional additions to the
budget rather than to trim the total amount in the bill.
The committee also cut a net of $1.1 billion from procurement, $1.9 billion from
operation and maintenance (O&M), and $1.2 billion from military personnel
accounts, while it added $2.1 billion to R&D accounts. Of the cuts in military
personnel, $784 million are from projected underexecution of approved personnel
levels as reported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and $288 million
from the Air Force to reflect a shift of Operation Noble Eagle costs (which provides
security at military bases and air defense overflights) to the additional emergency
appropriations in Title IX of the bill. In O&M, $433 million of savings are from
shifting Operation Noble Eagle costs to Title IX, and substantial additional amounts
are from shifting to Title IX funds for the regular pay of military technicians who are
mobilized for overseas operations.20 In the procurement accounts, many of the
committees cuts from the request are from following the authorization bill in shifting
part of the requested amounts for several programs, such as M-1 tank upgrades, to
emergency war funds in Title IX.
Second, the committee did not provide funds for the 2.7% military pay raise
approved in the House-passed authorization bill nor did it provide funds for increases
in end-strength over the requested levels. This avoided the need for any increases in
the military personnel accounts compared to the request. If the authorization
conference report provides a 2.7% pay raise rather than the 2.2% requested, the
appropriators may then either agree to add funds to the bill in conference or, instead,
require the Defense Department to absorb the costs and transfer funds from other
accounts. The committee approved an increase of general transfer authority to $4.75
billion in the regular bill with an additional $2.5 billion in Title IX to accommodate
such requirements. On end-strength levels, the committee appears to assume that any
increases will continue to be funded from emergency appropriations for war costs in
FY2007, as they have been in the past.
On major weapons programs, as is usually the case, the House appropriators
generally followed the House authorization bill. As in the authorization, the
appropriations —
!Cut $326 million from Army Future Combat System R&D;
!Cut funding for Transformational Communications Satellite R&D,
though by $100 million rather than by $80 million;
!Cut funding for Space Radar R&D, though by $66 million rather
than by $30 million;


20 This is also a way of shifting costs that normally would be counted in the regular
appropriations to emergency accounts. Technically, emergency funding is used to pay
“incremental” costs of contingency operations — i.e., expenses over and above the normal
operating costs of the forces. Pay of mobilized military technicians is not an incremental
expense of the operations.

!Added $50 million for DDG-51 destroyer modernization, though not
the $200 million in the authorization;
!Added $1.4 billion to cover the full cost of procuring 20 F-22
aircraft, rejecting the Air Force incremental funding plan;
!Added $200 million in R&D to develop a second engine for the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter (the authorization approved $245 million);
!Reduced funds to commence F-35 procurement;
!Eliminated funds to shut down C-17 cargo aircraft production,
!Eliminated $38 million requested to convert Trident II D-5 missiles
to carry conventional warheads; and
!Shifted some procurement funds that were requested in the regular
appropriations accounts to be funded with emergency funds for the
war.
In contrast to the authorization, the House appropriators —
!Did not add $400 million in advance procurement for a second
Virginia-class attack submarine in FY2009; and
!Eliminated funding requested to begin procurement of 12 EA-18G
electronic warfare versions of the F-18 aircraft and instead shifted
funds to add 12 F/A-18E/F aircraft.
FY2007 Defense Appropriations — Highlights of House Floor
Action
Traditionally, House floor debate on the defense appropriations bill is very brief
and, although the bill generally comes to the floor with an open rule, very few
amendments are proposed. This year, however, a number of controversial
amendments were considered on the floor, including several proposals to strip
specific congressional earmarks of funds from the bill.
The House considered the bill on the floor on June 20, 2006. A number of less
controversial amendments were approved by voice vote, including amendments
!By Representative Murtha to restore funding for the Perpetually
Available and Secure Information Systems program;
!By Representative Granger to delete a provision in the committee
bill that would prevent foreign sales of the F/A-22 fighter;
!By Representative Castle to prohibit award fees for performance that
does not meet contract requirements;
!By Representative Markey to prohibit funds in the bill from being
used in contravention laws or regulations to implement the UN
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment;
!By Representative Inslee to prohibit the use of funds to implement
some provisions of the National Security Personnel System that a
Federal court found not to preserve adequate collective bargaining
and adverse action appeals procedures; and



!By Representative Holmes to prohibit the use of funds to privatize
base operation support services at Walter Reed Army Medical
Hospital.
The House also debated and rejected several amendments on matters of U.S.
national security policy, including a measure to prohibit National Security Agency
surveillance activities not authorized through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA), a measure to prohibit military action against Iran without advance
congressional approval, and a measure to delete a provision in the committee bill to
prohibit the establishment of permanent basing rights agreement in Iraq. The
measures that the House rejected include amendments
!By Representative Steve King to strike section 9012 of the
Committee bill which prohibits funds from being used to enter into
a basing rights agreement with Iraq (failed 50 - 376);
!By Representative Chocola to prohibit the use of funds from being
available for the development, deployment, or operation the Defense
Travel System (failed 141 - 285);
!By Representative Schiff to prohibit funds from being used to
engage in electronic surveillance in the United States except as
authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(failed 207 - 219);
!By Representative Hinchey to prohibit any of the funds from being
used to initiate military operations against Iran except in accordance
with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (failed 158 - 262); and
!By Representative Hinchey to prohibit any funds from being used
for any contract with the Lincoln Group (failed 153 - 268).
Four amendments were proposed and then withdrawn by their sponsors,
specifically amendments
!By Representative Jackson-Lee to require that not less than $10
million be used for prosthetic research;
!By Representative Engel to comment the Navy for having the
highest percentage of Alternative Fuel Vehicles acquired by any
federal agency during FY2005;
!By Representative Stearns to prohibit the use of funds to interpret
voluntary religious discussions as “official” as specified in the Air
Force revised interim guidelines concerning free exercise of religion;
and
!By Representative Filner to prohibit funds from being used to place
a social security account number on any military identification card.
Finally, the House rejected several amendments by Representative Flake to
remove certain earmarks of funds for specific projects, including funding for
!the Wind Demonstration Project;
!the Institute for Exploration at Mystic Aquarium in New London,
Connecticut;
!the JASON Education Foundation;



!the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation;
!the Illinois Technology Transition Center;
!the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative;
! the Lewis Center for Education Research;
!the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program;
and
!the Leonard Wood Research Institute.
Senate Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations
The Senate Appropriations Committee announced its initial 302(b) allocations
to the subcommittees on June 22, 2006. The allocations provide $9.1 billion less
than the Administration requested for the defense subcommittee, leaving
substantially more for other subcommittees, particularly Labor-HHS-Education, with
$5 billion more than the Administration requested (see Table 9).
Table 9. Initial vs. Latest Senate 302(b)
Subcommittee Allocations
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Init ia l La t e st
FY2006 FY2007 Allo ca t io n Versus Allo ca t io n Versus
Ena c t e d Request 6/22/06 Request 9/26/06 Request
Agriculture 18.4 17.4 18.2 +0.8 18.2 +0.8
Commerce, Justice,49.449.651.0+1.451.0+1.4
Science
Defense 399.3 423.6 414.5 -9.1 414.3 -9.2
District of Columbia0.60.60.6 0.6
Energy & Water30.229.530.7+1.330.7+1.3
Homeland Security30.531.031.7+0.731.9+0.9
Interior 25.9 25.5 26.0 +0.5 26.0 +0.5
Labor-HHS-Educatio n 141.2 137.8 142.8 +5.0 142.8 +5.0
Legislative Branch3.84.24.0-0.23.9-0.3
Military Construction/VA44.052.852.9+0.152.9+0.1
State, Foreign Operations30.133.731.3-2.431.3-2.4
Transportation, Treasury,67.967.169.0+1.969.0+1.9
Judiciary, HUD
Total 302(a) Allocation841.3872.8872.8 872.8
Source: Senate Appropriations Committee.
The committee’s initial 302(b) allocations put the Senate directly at odds with
the White House on budget priorities and, to a degree, on the use of emergency
appropriations to fund programs requested in the regular, non-emergency defense
budget. The White House Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the House-
reported version of the defense appropriations bill,21 issued on June 20, complained
that the House bill cut $4 billion from the request and shifted about $2 billion from


21 Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5631 —
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY2007,” June 20, 2006, on line at
[ ht t p: / / www.whi t e house.gov/ omb/ l e gi sl at i ve/ sap/ 109-2/ hr 5631sap-h.pdf ] .

the regular “base” DOD budget to the emergency spending accounts in Title IX of the
House measure. “Base funding requirements,” the White House said, “should not be
shifted to supplemental bills as a way to increase non-security related discretionary
funding.” Moreover, the SAP warned very strongly, in text that was underlined in
the official letter, that the President would veto a defense bill that cut spending too
deeply: “If the President is presented with a final DOD appropriations bill that
significantly underfunds the Department of Defense to shift funds to non-security
spending, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto that bill [emphasis in
the original].”
FY2007 Defense Appropriations — Highlights of the Senate
Appropriations Committee Bill
The Senate committee version of the defense appropriations bill would make
available $453.5 billion for the defense programs in covers, including $50 billion in
funding for overseas operations. An additional $11.3 billion is available as a
permanent appropriation for retiree medical benefits, increasing the total
appropriation for FY2007 to $464.8 billion (see Table 2).
Funding Cuts and Caps on Discretionary Spending and on
Emergency Spending. Perhaps the most controversial issue in the Senate bill is
that the total amount is $9.1 billion below the Administration request. A House cut
of $4.1 billion in its version of the bill prompted the White House to threaten a veto
if the final bill “underfunds” defense in order to shift funds to non-defense programs.
The Senate 302(b) allocations straightforwardly shift $9.5 billion from defense and
military construction appropriations to non-defense appropriations bills.
Though usually remaining unspoken, the premise of the Senate and House
302(b) cuts in defense is that the cuts can be made up from funding provided as
additional money for overseas operations. So a directly related issue is the extent to
which the Senate bill shifts funding from the regular defense appropriations accounts
to Title IX of the bill that provides additional funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. The
White House Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the House version of the
appropriations bill also complained about this practice. The White House estimated
that the House bill shifts about $2 billion of funding from the regular defense bill to
the amounts provided as additional appropriations that are exempted from the $872.8
billion cap on total discretionary funding in FY2007. The Senate bill provides funds
for many of the same programs as the House bill as additional appropriations,
including funds for M-1 tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades, to continue C-

17 production, and for V-22 tilt rotor aircraft.


There is a further complication in the Senate. Section 402 of the Senate-passed
budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 83, (1) establishes the $872.8 billion cap on FY2007
discretionary funding, (2) exempts funding that is designated as “emergency”
appropriations from the cap, but also, (3) sets a cap of $86.3 billion on emergency
funding in FY2007 (the total was reduced from $90 billion in a floor amendment).
The FY2006 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4939 “deems” all of these
requirements to apply in the Senate in the absence of a conference agreement on the
budget resolution.



This presents a problem for the appropriators, however, because costs of a later
emergency FY2007 supplemental request for Iraq and Afghanistan, expected next
February, together with costs of Katrina-recovery and other disaster relief, bird flu
preparations, border security, agricultural disaster relief, and other purposes, will
almost surely exceed the cap by a substantial amount. It will still be possible to go
ahead with emergency funding for these purposes, but only with offsetting rescissions
of funds for costs that exceed the cap.
As a result, the Senate Appropriations Committee took a step to reduce the
potential need for offsets by declaring only part of the funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan in the bill as FY2007 emergency funding. Within Title IX of the bill,
only funds in Chapter 1, Military Personnel, and Chapter 2, Operation and
Maintenance, are designated as emergency funding exempt from the FY2007 caps.
These chapters provide $42.1 billion of the $50 billion in Title IX. Funds in Chapter

3, Procurement, Chapter 4, RDT&E, Chapter 5, Revolving and Management Funds,


and Chapter 6, Related Agencies, which provide $7.9 billion, are simply made
available “on enactment” of the bill. The effect is to have these amounts scored as
FY2006 rather than FY2007 money. This is the key point. The additional $7.9
billion in FY2006 funds will not trigger a point of order for exceeding FY2006
discretionary spending levels, since room remains under the FY2006 budget caps due
to the $8 billion across-the-board cut in appropriations that Congress made at the end
of last year.
Other Issues in the Senate Defense Appropriations Bill. Aside from
the overall budget issues, the Senate Appropriations Committee version of the
defense appropriations bill addresses a number of other key policy matters.
The $9.1 billion of cuts in spending come mainly in operation and maintenance
(O&M), $3.8 billion, and in general provisions of the bill, $2.6 billion (see Table
2 above). Within O&M, the major cuts include
!$332 million in Army depot maintenance because of a reduced
peacetime requirement, a cut of about 1/3 in the $974 million
requested — Title IX of the bill provides $2.5 billion for Army depot
maintenance and another $2.5 billion for Army reset, which involves
some similar maintenance at the unit level;
!$245 million for an Army peacetime training offset, referring to
training not done because troops are deployed abroad, a cut that
otherwise might offset requirements for additional funds in Title IX;
!$188 million in Army unobligated balances;
!$215 million for a Navy peacetime training offset;
!$200 million for unexplained growth in Air Force air operations;
!$160 million from deterring some Air Force facilities repairs;
!$275 million for an overstatement of Air Force civilian personnel;
!$400 million for Air Force peacetime flying hour requirements;
!$200 million for a reduction based on the increase from prior year
Air Force requirements;
!$108 million in Air Force unobligated balances;
!$220 million in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) funds
realigned in part to Title IX; and



!$108.8 million in defense-wide unobligated balances.
Within General Provisions of the bill, the major cuts include
!$53.2 million cut from Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs);
!$985.3 million in rescissions of prior year appropriations;
!$92 million from unspecified Army and Air Force efficiencies;
!$71 million from advisory and assistance services;
!$85 million in travel funds; and
!$520 million for changed economic assumptions, applied
proportionately to amounts for procurement, R&D, and some other
titles of the bill.
On personnel-related policy, the committee
!provided funds for a pay raise of 2.2%, though the authorization
conference agreement may agree to a 2.7% raise as in the House bill;
!agreed to an increase of 30,000 in Army and 5,000 in Marine Corps
active duty end-strength, though with funds provided in Title IX (the
report does not explicitly make that point, but the funding totals in
Title IX reflect amounts the Administrations estimates would be
need for what it calls “overstrength”); and
!provided $164 million to support an Army National Guard end-
strength of 350,000 rather than the 333,000 for which funding was
requested.
On major weapons programs, the committee
!cut 6 helicopters and $40 million from the 18 aircraft and $141
million requested in the Army Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter
program;
!cut 223 aircraft and $18 million from the 39 aircraft and $199
million requested for the Army Light Utility Helicopter program;
!cut $78 million for Bradley Fighting Vehicle mods, but added funds
in Title IX;
!cut $254 million from the $3.7 billion requested for Future Combat
System R&D, compared to a $326 million cut in the House bill;
!cut $220 million for 1 of the 2 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
requested, complaining that Navy cost figures in the past were
incomplete and therefore understated costs;
!eliminated $455 million requested in the National Defense Sealift
fund to build one T-AKE cargo ship saying that the Navy had not
begun building 5 previously funded ships and that $2.4 billion of
prior year funding remains unexpended;
!added $117 million for one oceanographic survey ship;
!eliminated the almost $1.3 billion requested in the Navy and Air
Force to begin procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but



added $340 million in R&D to continue development of an
alternative aircraft engine for the program;
!like the House, added $1.4 billion to fully fund procurement of 20
F-22 fighter aircraft;
!rejected the Administration proposal to shut down C-17 production
after FY2007 and shifted $329 million requested in the regular
budget to fund the shutdown to Title IX to purchase 7 aircraft;
!cut 4 aircraft and $257 million from the 12 aircraft and $905 million
requested for the Navy EA-18G aircraft and added $219 million for
4 F/A-18E/F aircraft — the House had cut all 12 EA-18s and added
funds for 12 F/A-18s;
!cut $230 million of the $867 million requested for Transformational
Communications Satellite R&D, compared to $100 million cut in the
House bill;
!cut $109 million of the $266 million requested for the Space Radar
compared to $66 million cut in the House bill; and
!provided $340 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment,
compared to $500 million in the House bill.
For additional details on selected major weapons programs, see Table A5.
FY2007 Defense Appropriations — Highlights of Senate Floor
Action
The Senate began floor action on the defense appropriations bill on the evening
of August 1, and both the majority and minority leaders expressed the hope that the
Senate could complete action before adjourning for the August recess on Friday,
August 3. On August 3, however, Senator Reid said that as many as 50 Democratic
amendments remained to be addressed. Although Senator Stevens argued that the
Senate should stay through the night, in the end the leadership agreed to resume
consideration of the fill when the Senate returned on September 5. The Senate took
up the bill on September 5 and completed action on September 7.
The most high profile debate when the Senate returned was on an amendment
by Senator Reid and other Democrats expressing the sense of the Senate on the need
for a new direction in Iraq policy and in the civilian leadership of the Department of
Defense – a direct rebuke to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The Senate debated the
measure for much of the day on September 6, though it was finally ruled out of order
by the chair as not germane.
The largest substantive change in the bill on the Senate floor was an amendment
by Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, the chairman and ranking member of the
defense subcommittee, respectively, to add $13.1 billion in emergency funds to repair
and replace equipment being used by Army and Marine units in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Between the time the bill was reported on July 20 and the time the it came up on the
floor, an ongoing debate about Army and Marine Corps readiness became
increasingly heated. In June, Army and Marine Corps officials testified to
congressional committees about the estimated costs of “resetting” units to repair,
upgrade, and replace equipment either worn out or lost in overseas operations or left



in the theater by units returning to home. The Army estimated as yet unfunded, long
term reset costs of $17 billion and the Marine Corp estimated costs of $12-13 billion.
In addition, in July, leaders of the Army National Guard have said that it would take
$21 billion over the next few years to reset ground forces and to reequip the force to
meet official requirements for new “modular” units.
In response, Senators Reed and Dayton announced that they would propose an
amendment to the appropriations bill to add $10 billion to “reset” Army and Marine
Corps units returning from operations abroad. This led Senator Stevens to work with
DOD and the White House on an alternative, which ultimately became his and
Senator Inouye’s surprise $13.1 billion amendment.
The second largest addition of emergency funding was an amendment by
Senators Sessions and Kyl to add $1.8 billion for border security. This was to fund
fences and vehicle borders that the Senate authorized in action on the Immigration
Reform Act, S. 2611, in May, but that was not funded in the Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, H.R. 5441. Now that the Senate has approved the funding as
part of the defense bill, the issue is (1) whether the defense bill, rather than the
homeland security appropriations bill is the proper vehicle for it and (2) whether and
how to find offsets for the increased funding.
A third debate on the Senate floor did not involve a large amount of money, but
nonetheless became quite contentious. On August 2, Senator Durbin proposed an
amendment earmarking $2 million in Army R&D funds for a program to improve
imaging of brain injuries. Senator Stevens opposed the amendment, arguing that the
Senate needed to limit the amount of money it perennially adds to the defense
appropriation bill for medical R&D programs, many of which, such as breast cancer
and prostate cancer research, are at best only indirectly related to military
requirements. Senator Inouye supported Senator Stevens and the Senate tabled the
amendment by a largely party-line vote of 54-43. Subsequently, a number of veterans
organizations complained that requested FY2007 funding for an Army-funded center
for treating brain injuries was lower than the FY2006 level. When the Senate
returned in September, Senator Allen offered an amendment to add $19 million for
brain injury programs.
Between the time it began debate on August 1 and the time it passed the
appropriations bill on September 7, the Senate disposed of almost 90 amendments.
As is usually the case, most of the amendments were non-controversial measures to
add relatively small amounts for specific projects. In action on the more significant
amendments, the Senate
!on the opening evening of debate on August 1, approved a proposal
by Senators Stevens and Inouye, Senate Amendment (SA) 4751, to
add $13.1 billion in emergency funds22 to reequip Army and Marine


22 Technically, the amendment designates the additional funding as “emergency”
appropriations in the Senate and as “appropriations for contingency operations” in the
House. Section 402 of the Senate-passed FY2007 budget resolution exempts funds that are
(continued...)

Corps units returning from Iraq — this amendment was as an
alternative, approved by the White House and the Defense
Department, to an amendment earlier proposed by Senators Reed
and Dodd to add $10.2 billion to “reset” Army and Marine forces;
!approved an amendment by Senators Bond and Leahy, SA 4827, to
specify that $2.4 billion of the $13.1 billion provided in the
Stevens/Inouye amendment be allocated to National Guard and
Reserve units;
!approved, by a vote of 94-3, an amendment by Senator Sessions, SA
4775, adding $1.8 billion in emergency funds for fences and vehicle
barriers on the Mexican border — this was a substitute for a similar
amendment, SA 4788, by Senator Kyl;
!rejected, by a vote of 54-43, an amendment by Senator Durbin, SA
4781, to add $2 million, with an offset, for an Army medical R&D
program — in this, the Senate supported Senator Stevens’s effort to
limit the amount medical R&D earmarks;
!approved a proposal by Senator Coburn, SA 4848, to require the
Defense Department to list, identify the location, and assess the
utility of all congressional earmarks in the defense bill;
!approved another proposal by Senator Coburn, SA 4784, with
Senator Obama, to require the Defense Department to post
electronically all reports to Congress required by the act within 48
hours after they are submitted and to post all budget justification
material;
!approved, by a vote of 96-0, another amendment by Senator Coburn,
SA 4785, to require reports on the risk of improper Department of
Defense payments for travel;
!approved an additional amendment by Senator Coburn, SA 4787, to
limit DOD funding for conferences to $70 million;
!approved an amendment by Senator Allen, SA 4883, to provide $19
million for a DOD/VA brain injury center;


22 (...continued)
designated as an “emergency requirement” from the cap that the resolution places on total
discretionary funding. Section 402 of the House-passed resolution exempts funding “for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other
unanticipated defense-related operations.” In the Senate, most of the $50 billion provided
in Title IX as “Additional Appropriations” are designated as emergency funds, though, as
discussed above, $7.9 billion of the amount is made available when enacted, presumably
in FY2006. In the House, all of the $50 billion in Title IX for “Additional Appropriations”
are designated as being for “contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations.”

!rejected by a vote of 30-70 an amendment by Senators Feinstein and
Leahy, SA 4882, to require that rules of engagement prohibit cluster
munitions from being used near large groups of non-combatants;
!tabled by a vote of 54-44 an amendment by Senators Kennedy and
Reid, SA 4885, to require that quarterly reports on Iraq include more
information on trends toward civil war;
!tabled by a vote of 50-48 an amendment by Senators Mikulski and
Sarbanes to privatize base support services at the Walter Reed
Hospital;
!considered an amendment by Senator Rockefeller, SA 4906, that
was then withdrawn, to eliminate parts of the bill authorizing
intelligence activities, a measure the Senator proposed to urge
passage of the intelligence authorization bill;
!approved, by a vote of 98-0, an amendment by Senator Conrad, SA
4907, to add $200 million in emergency funds enhance intelligence
community efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and other key leaders
of al Qaeda;
!approved, after rejected a motion to table the measure by a vote of
45-51, an amendment by Senator Schumer, SA 4897, to provide
$700 million in emergency funds (in Title VI of the bill, rather than
in Title IX), for counter-drug programs in Afghanistan;
!approved an amendment by Senator Boxer, SA 4913, to require a
report on procedures and guidelines the event of further sectarian
violence in Iraq;
!approved an amendment by Senators Kennedy and Hatch, SA 4857,
to prohibit privatization of civilian work if contractors have an
advantage because they provide inferior retirement benefits;
!approved an amendment by Stevens and Murkowski, SA 4917, to
allow the Secretary of the Army to reimburse servicemembers and
their families for financial hardships due to extended deployment
overseas;
!approved an amendment by Senators Reid and Obama, SA 4912, to
provide $20 million in emergency funds to assist the African Union
force in Sudan;
!approved and amendment by Senator Bingaman, SA 4915, to
appropriate $275 million in emergency FY20006 funds for wildfire
suppression;



!approved, by a unanimous vote of 98-0, an amendment by Senators
Reed and Bayh, SA 4911, to provide $65.4 million in emergency
funds to procure Predator UAVs for Special Operations forces; and
!tabled by a vote of 51-44 an amendment by Senator Menendez, SA
4909, to prohibit the use of funds for a public relations program
designed to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle
East and promote positive coverage of the war in Iraq.
Table 10 provides a list of Senate action on these and some other selected
amendments to the bill.
Table 10: Senate Floor Action on Selected Amendments:
Defense Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5631
# P urpo se Spo nso r St a t us
Amendments Agreed To
August 1, 2006
4751*To appropriate as additional appropriationsStevensAgreed to in Senate by
$7,800,000,000 for the Army and $5,300,000,000 for theUnanimous Consent.
Marine Corps for the reset of equipment due to continuing
combat operations and to designate such amounts as
emergency requirements.
August 2, 2006
4772To provide that none of the funds appropriated orCarperAgreed to in Senate by
otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated orUnanimous Consent.
expended to provide award fees to any defense contractor
for performance that does not meet the requirements of the
contract.
4775*To provide $1,829,100,000 for the Army National GuardSessions[To SA 4788] as modified
for the construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing,agreed to in Senate by
and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwestYea-Nay Vote. 94 - 3.
border.Record Vote Number: 220.
4788*To provide $1,829,000,000 for the Army National GuardKylAgreed to in Senate by
for the construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing,Unanimous Consent.
and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest[Note: Amended by SA
border. 4775].
4819*To make available up to an additional $6,700,000,000 toDoddAgreed to in Senate by
fund equipment reset requirements resulting fromYea-Nay Vote. 97 - 0.
continuing combat operations, including repair, depot, andRecord Vote Number: 221.
procurement activities.
August 3, 2006
4784To require the posting of certain reports of the DepartmentCoburnAs modified agreed to in
of Defense on the Internet website of the Department ofSenate by Voice Vote.


Defe nse.

# P urpo se Spo nso r St a t us
4785To ensure the fiscal integrity of travel payments made byCoburnAs modified agreed to in
the Department of Defense.Senate by Yea-Nay Vote.
96 - 0. Record Vote
Number: 224.
4787To limit the funds available to the Department of DefenseCoburn/Agreed to in Senate by
for expenses relating to conferences.ObamaVoice Vote after Senate
failed table the amendment
by Yea-Nay Vote. 36-60
Record Vote Number: 223
4801To make available from Shipbuilding and Conversion,DeWineAs modified agreed to in
Navy, up to $10,000,000 for the Carrier ReplacementSenate by Unanimous
Program for advance procurement of nuclear propulsionConsent.
equipment.
4802To require a new National Intelligence Estimate onKennedyAs modified agreed to in
prospects for security and stability in Iraq.Senate by Unanimous
Co nse nt.
4827*To ensure that of the $13.1 billion provided by SA 4751,BondAs modified agreed to in
$2.4 billion is available for National Guard and ReserveSenate by Unanimous
equipment. Co nse nt.
4848To require notice to Congress and the public on earmarksCoburnAgreed to in Senate by
of funds available to the Department of Defense.Yea-Nay Vote. 96 - 1.
Record Vote Number: 226.
4851To prohibit the use of funds for establishing United StatesBidenAgreed to in Senate by
military installations in Iraq or exercising United StatesUnanimous Consent.
control over the oil resources of Iraq.
4858To prohibit the use of funds by the United StatesBoxerAgreed to in Senate by
Government to enter into an agreement with theYea-Nay Vote. 97 - 0.
Government of Iraq that would subject members of theRecord Vote Number: 225.
Armed Forces to the jurisdiction of Iraq criminal courts or
punishment under Iraq law.
September 6, 2006
4883To make available from Defense Health Program up toAllen Agreed to in Senate by
$19,000,000 for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injuryunanimous consent.
Ce nte r .
September 7, 2006
4907*To add $200 million in emergency funds to enhanceConrad Agreed to in Senate by a
intelligence community efforts to bring Osama bin Ladenunanimous vote of 96 yeas.
and other key leaders of al Qaeda to the justice theyVote No. 235.
deserve.
4897*To make available up to an additional $700 million forSchumer Agreed to in Senate by
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities to combatVoice Vote. Senate earlier
the growth of poppies in Afghanistan, to eliminate thefailed to table the
production and trade of opium and heroin, and to preventamendment by 45 yeas to
terrorists from using the proceeds for terrorist activities in51 nays. Vote No. 237.


Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and to designate the
additional amount as emergency spending.

# P urpo se Spo nso r St a t us
4913To require a report on procedures and guidelines the eventBoxer Agreed to in Senate by
of further sectarian violence.unanimous consent.
4857To provide that none of the funds appropriated by this ActKennedy/Agreed to in Senate by
may be available for the conversion to contractorHatch unanimous consent.
performance of certain activities or functions of the
Department of Defense in cases where the contractor
receives a competitive advantage by offering inferior
retirement benefits to workers who are going to be
employed in the performance of such activities or functions
than those offered by the Department to comparable
civilian employees.
4900*To make available up to $2,000,000 for infrastructure forGrahamAgreed to in Senate by
the Afghanistan military legal system.unanimous consent.
4917To provide the Secretary of the Army the ability toStevens/Agreed to in Senate by
reimburse servicemembers and their families for financialMurkowsunanimous consent.
hardships due to extended deployment overseas.ki
4912*To increase by $20,000,000 the amount made available byReid/Agreed to in Senate by
chapter 2 of title IX for Operation and Maintenance,Obama unanimous consent.
Defense-Wide for the purpose of assisting the African
Union force in Sudan.
4915*To appropriate $275 million for emergency wildfireBingaman Agreed to in Senate by
suppression.unanimous consent.
4911*To make available an additional $65,400,000 for additionalReed/Agreed to in Senate by a
appropriations for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for theBayh unanimous vote of 98 yeas.
procurement of Predators for Special Operations forces,Record Vote No. 238.
and to designate the amount as an emergency requirement.
Amendment Rejected
August 2, 2006
4781To appropriate, with an offset, an additional $2,000,000 forDurbinMotion to table agreed to
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army for thein Senate by Yea-Nay
improvement of imaging for traumatic brain injuries.Vote. 54 - 43. Record Vote
Number: 222.
August 3, 2006
4844To make available from Research, Development, Test, andSessionsNot agreed to in Senate by
Evaluation, Navy, up to $77,000,000 for the ConventionalYea-Nay Vote. 31 - 67.
Trident Modification Program.Record Vote Number: 227.
September 6, 2006
4882To protect civilian lives from unexploded clusterFeinstein/Not agreed to in Senate by
munitions.Leahy Yea-Nay Vote. 30-70.
Record Vote No. 232.
4885To include information on civil war in Iraq in the quarterlyKennedy/Motion to table agreed to
reports on progress toward military and political stability inReid in Senate by Yea-Nay
Iraq. Vote. 54 -44. Record
Vote No. 233.



# P urpo se Spo nso r St a t us
4895To provide that none of the funds appropriated orMikulski/Motion to table
otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enterSarbanes amendment agreed to in
into or carry out a contract for the performance by aSenate by Yea-Nay Vote.
contractor of any base operation support service at Walter50-48. Record Vote No.
Reed Army Medical Hospital pursuant to a private-public234.
competition conducted under Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76 that was initiated on June 13, 2000,
and has the solicitation number DADA 10-03-R-0001.
September 7, 2006
4909To prohibit the use of funds for a public relations programMenendez Motion to table amendment
designed to monitor news media in the United States andagreed to in Senate by Yea-
the Middle East and create a database of news stories toNay Vote. 51-44. Record
promote positive coverage of the war in Iraq.Vote No. 236.
Amendments Ruled out of Order
August 2, 2006
4768To provide emergency supplemental appropriations forCornynRuled out of order by the
border security and immigration reform.chair.
4795To provide for the extension and modification of certainReidRuled out of order by the
tax relief provisions, and for Surface Mining Control andchair.
Reclamation Act amendments.
4805To improve Federal contracting and procurement byDorganRuled out of order by the
eliminating fraud and abuse and improving competition inchair.
contracting and procurement and by enhancing
administration of Federal contracting personnel.
4806To prohibit the suspension of royalties under certainKylRuled out of order by the
circumstances, to clarify the authority to impose pricechair.
thresholds for certain leases, to limit the eligibility of
certain lessees for new leases, and to restrict the transfer of
certain leases.
August 3, 2006
4853To appropriate funds for a Cuba Fund for a DemocraticNelsonRuled out of order by the
Future to promote democratic transition in Cuba.(FL)chair.
4875To increase by $200,000,000 the amount appropriated orStabenowRuled out of order by the
otherwise made available by title IX for the purpose ofchair.
supplying needed humanitarian assistance to the innocent
Lebanese and Israeli civilians who have been affected by the
hostilities between Hezbollah and the Government of Israel.
September 6, 2006
4904Providing a sense of the Senate on the need for a newReid Ruled out of order by the
direction in Iraq policy and in the civilian leadership of thechair.
Department of Defense
*Notes: Amendments 4788, 4819, 4827, and 4900 do not add funds to the total in the bill. SA 4788 was incorporated
into a modification of SA 4775 which was subsequently approved, so the total in SA 4775 adds to the bill, but not the
total in SA 4788. Amendments 4819, 4827, and 4900 all allocate funds already provided in the bill. Amendments 4751,
4775, 4897, 4907, 4912, 4915, and 4911 add a total of $16.2 billion in emergency funds.



FY2007 Defense Appropriations — Highlights of the
Conference Agreement
Conferees announced an agreement on the defense appropriations bill on
September 21 and issued a conference report on September 25, H.Rept. 109-676.
Perhaps the most contentious issue resolved in the conference agreement was the
total amount of spending in the bill. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committees provided less money for defense than the Administration requested as
a means of freeing up funds for non-defense appropriations bills while still remaining
under the cap of $872.8 billion on total discretionary spending in the House and
Senate versions of the FY2007 budget resolution. The House trimmed $4.1 billion,
from the request, while the Senate cut $9.1 billion.
Most of the reductions were made up, indirectly, with funding provided as
emergency appropriations (or, technically, in the House, as funding for overseas
contingency operations). But the White House objected to the process of, in effect,
using emergency funds to offset defense cuts which, in turn, left room under
discretionary spending caps to increase non-defense spending. So, in the formal
OMB Statement of Administration Policy on the House-passed defense
appropriations bill, the White House threatened to veto the measure if it cut funding
by more than $4 billion as a means of allowing increased non-security spending. The
White House stuck to this position when House and Senate appropriators proposed
a compromise that would trim defense by about $6 billion. In the end, the
appropriations conference agreement cut defense by $4 billion. It remains to be seen
how this will play out when Congress resumes consideration of non-defense
appropriations bills after it returns in November.
Another key issue resolved in the conference agreement was how to address
complaints from the Army and Marine Corps about shortfalls in funding to “reset”
their forces – that is, to repair, upgrade, and replace equipment used in operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The services insisted that even the additional funding provided
for reset in the $50 billion bridge fund for overseas operations in the early months of
FY2007 was inadequate to meet their established requirements. In response, in floor
action on the appropriations bill, the Senate added $13.1 billion in emergency
funding to meet Army and Marine Corps reset goals. The conference agreement goes
still further. It increases the total in the bridge fund to $70 billion, and, according to
figures in a House Appropriations Committee press release on the conference
agreement, it provides $17.1 billion for Army and $5.8 billion for Marine Corps
reset, a total of $22.9 billion.
The Senate also added some other emergency funding to the bill during floor
action, including $1.8 billion for fences and vehicle barriers on the Mexican border,
$700 million for counter-drug measures in Afghanistan, $200 million for intelligence
programs to help capture Al Qaeda leaders, $65 million for Predator UAVs, $20
million for help to peacekeepers in Sudan, and $275 million for wildfire suppression.
The conference agreement rejected most of these measures – it left border security
to be addressed in other appropriations bills, provided $200 million for Afghan
counter-drug operations, $20 million for Sudan, and $200 million for wildfires – the
wildfire money was provided in a new title, Title X, of the bill.



In addition, the conference agreement resolved a number of disagreements, both
between Congress and the Administration and between the House and the Senate,
over funding for major weapons systems. On some of the key weapons issues, the
conference agreement,
!rejects the Administration proposal to terminate C-17 cargo aircraft
production after FY2007 and buys 22 aircraft, 12 in the regular bill
and 10 in the “bridge fund” for operations abroad;
!approves a Navy proposal to provide partial funding for 2 DDG-
1000 destroyers – formerly the DD(X) – rather than providing full
funding for just one ship as in the House bill;
!includes funds as requested for one T-AKE cargo ship and for 2
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), rather than eliminating T-AKE funds
and procuring only one LCS, as in the Senate bill;
!also adds $117 million, as in the Senate bill, for a T-AGS ocean
survey ship;
!provides $3.4 billion for Army Future Combat system R&D, about
$300 million below the request;
!slows F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement, with funds to buy 2
rather than the requested 5 aircraft, but does not eliminate FY2007
aircraft procurement funds as the Senate bill did, and also adds $340
million to maintain development of an alternative engine;
!provides full funding for F-22 procurement in FY2007, rather than
partial funding as the Air Force requested, and also approves the
requested multiyear procurement of F-22s, although the multiyear
contract must also be approved in the defense authorization bill;23
!follows the Senate bill by shifting funds for 4 EA-18Gs to
procurement of 4 F/A-18s – the House had eliminated all funds for
the 8 EA-18s requested and added funds for 12 F/A-18s;
!provides $70 million in R&D for a new refueling aircraft to replace
KC-135 tankers, which will allow the Air Force to carry on a request
for bids in what appears to be a very high-stakes, high-profile
competition between Boeing and Airbus;
!adds $290 million for National Guard and reserve equipment;


23 Section 2306b i (3) of Title 10 U.S. Code requires that an Act other than an appropriations
Act must approve multiyear procurement – “In the case of the Department of Defense, a
multiyear contract in an amount equal to or greater than $500,000,000 may not be entered
into for any fiscal year under this section unless the contract is specifically authorized by
law in an Act other than an appropriations Act.”

!reduces funding for the Transformational Communication Satellite
(TSAT) by $130 million, for the Space Radar by $80 million, and
for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle by $80 million;
!for missile defense, cuts $48 million from the Kinetic Energy
Interceptor, adds $200 million for the Ground-Based Missile
Defense program, adds $85 million for sea-based missile defense,
and adds $58 million for the U.S.-Israeli Arrow system.
On other issues, the conference agreement
!provides funding for a 2.2% military pay raise – if the authorization
conference agreement approves a raise of 2.7% as in the House-
passed bill, then the Defense Department can reprogram funds or ask
for supplemental appropriations to cover the cost;
!provides funds for Army National Guard end-strength of 350,000,
17,000 above the request, in regular appropriations and provides
funds for 30,000 additional Army and 5,000 additional Marine
active duty personnel in the overseas bridge fund;
!eliminates $127 million requested for deploying conventional
warheads on the Trident II missile and instead provides $5 million
for a study of short- and long-term alternatives for the global strike
mission and $20 million for technology common to any future
system;
!in the bridge fund for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, also
provides $1.5 billion to train and equip Afghan security forces, $1.7
billion for Iraqi security forces, and $500 million for the
Commander’s Emergency Response Fund for military forces in Iraq
to support reconstruction projects;
!requires a report on Iraq that includes measures of various trends,
including information on militias; and
!provides that none of the funds provided in the Act may be used
None of the funds made available in contravention of U.S. laws
implementing the 1985 UN Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
One issue that has received a great deal of attention among military advocacy
organizations – and that has stimulated a lot of mail to congressional offices – was
not resolved in the conference agreement on the defense appropriations bill, but will,
presumably be addressed in final action on the military quality of live/VA
appropriations bill. That issue is funding for a Defense and Veterans Brain Injury
Center. During floor action on the defense appropriations bill, the Senate added $19
million for the center within funding for the Defense Health Program (DHP). The
conference agreement on the defense appropriations bill, however, does not include



funding for DHP. Instead, it is provided in the military quality of life/VA bill. Final
action on DHP, including action on brain injury funding, will be discussed in CRS
Report RL33409, Veterans' Medical Care: FY2007 Appropriations, by Sidath
Viranga Panangala.
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of the
Conference Agreement
House and Senate conferees announced an agreement on the defense
authorization bill on the evening of September 28, the agreement was officially
reported on September 29 and approved by the House on September 29 and the
Senate on September 30. In the course of conference negotiations, it was periodically
reported that disputes over various measures were holding up final agreement. One
of the last issues to be resolve was, reportedly, whether to accept a House provision
that permitted military chaplains to offer prayers “according to the dictates of their
conscience.” Conferees resolved the issue by dropping the House provision, but by
including language in the report on the bill that requires the Army and Navy to
rescind recent directives on prayer and return to earlier practices.
The defense authorization conference agreement resolves a number of other
major defense policy issues. Table 11 provides a side-by-side summary of House,
Senate, and conference action on selected major issues. Among the key that the
conference resolved, a few merit a bit more comment.
!TRICARE for reservists: The conference agreement allows non-
deployed, as well as mobilized reservists, with the exception of
Federal employees eligible for the Federal health benefits plan, to
sign up for health insurance through the DOD-run TRICARE
program, with a premium of 28% of the cost, equal to the cost share
Federal employees pay for their insurance. Over the past few years,
Congress has been inching toward this kind of measure,
progressively making TRICARE available to certain reservists. The
Administration opposed full expansion of access to TRICARE, on
the grounds that it was an unnecessary cost, covering reservists who
have access to private health insurance. Congress has no decided to
go ahead with expansion of TRICARE eligibility anyway.
!Army and Marine Corps End-Strength: For FY2007, Congress has,
for the third year in a row, approved higher Army and Marine Corps
end-strength than the Administration wants. This has not yet had
any great budgetary impact, first, because the cost of additional end-
strength has been paid with emergency supplemental funding, rather
than within the regular defense budget, and second, because DOD
has not been able to recruit up to the full target level in any event.
It remains, however, a harbinger of disputes in the future that could
have major budget implications. Both the services clearly want
additional personnel. The issue is whether Congress will agree to a
permanent increase in the defense budget tp pay for it, or whether



costs will have to be absorbed. This year, Congress has also set
targets for further increases in end-strength in FY2008 and FY2009.
!Amendments to the “Insurrection Act:” The conference agreement
accepted a substantial Senate amendment to Chapter 15 of Title 10
U.S. Code, know as the “Insurrection Act.” Previously these
provisions allowed the President to use armed forces to suppress a
rebellion, an insurrection, or domestic violence if state authorities
are unable to do so. The new provisions, approved in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina, give the President authority to use armed forces
in response to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or health
emergencies if state and local agencies cannot ensure order.
!Expanded authority for cooperation with foreign governments: Since
the attacks of September 11, 2006, Congress has given the Defense
Department increased authority to use its funds to cooperate with
foreign military forces and foreign governments. Section 1206 of
the FY2006 defense authorization act allowed the Defense
Department to use funds to build the capacity of foreign militaries.
The Defense Department requested a substantial further expansion
of such authorities in its proposed FY2007 legislative measures.
Section 1206 of the FY2007 authorization permits a further
expansion of the FY2006 section 1206 authorities to allow military
commanders to build the capacity of foreign governments to carry
out counterterrorist operations and to support stability operations,
including some economic development activities.



CRS-61
Table 11: Side-by-Side Comparison of House, Senate, and Conference Action on
Major Policy Issues in the FY2007 Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 1522/S. 2766
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
ay

2.7%2.2%2.2%


serve End-Strength
iki/CRS-RL33405strengths of y: 482,400Sections 401 and 411 establish end-strengths ofSections 401 and 411 establish end-strengths ofSections 401 and 411 establish end-strengths of
g/wArmy: 512,400Army: 512,400Army: 512,400
s.ory National Guard: 350,000 butMarine Corps: 180,000Marine Corps: 180,000Marine Corps: 180,000
leak
for 333,000Army National Guard: 350,000Army National Guard: 350,000Army National Guard: 350,000
://wikiAlso establishes minimum activeAlso establishes minimum end-
httpduty end-strengths of 502,400 for thestrengths of 502,400 for the Army
Army and 180,000 for the Marineand 180,000 for the Marine Corps.
Corps.Also authorizes FY2008 and FY2009
Also authorizes FY2008 and FY2009active duty end-strengths of 532,400
active duty end-strengths of 532,400for the Army and 184,000 for the
for the Army and 184,000 for theMarine Corps.


Marine Corps.

CRS-62
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
CARE for Reservists
Section 709 expands eligibility forSection 708 allows reservistsSenate recedes. Section 706 permits
coverage under the TRICAREemployed by businesses with 20 orall non-active duty reservists to enroll
standard program to all members offewer employees to enroll inin TRICARE standard with a
the Selected Reserve and theirTRICARE for themselves and theirpremium of 28% of the cost as
families while in a non-active dutyfamilies with a premium of 50determined by the Secretary of
status provided they pay a monthlypercent of the estimated cost andDefense, except for Federal
premium equal to 28 percent of thereduces from 85 percent to 75 percentemployees eligible for the Federal
iki/CRS-RL33405cost established by the Secretary ofDefense. Federal employees eligibleof cost the portion that must be paidby reservists who are eligible forhealth benefits plan.
g/wfor the Federal health benefits planemployer-provided insurance but
s.or
leakare not eligible.chose primary coverage under
TRICARE.
://wikiicare Enrollment Fees and Co-pays
http
ricareSection 704 prohibits increases inSection 705 prohibits any increase inSection 704 prohibits any increases
ent fees, deductibles, andany premiums, deductibles, co-enrollment fees during fiscal yearbetween April 2, 2006, and
acy co-payments for militarypayments, or other charges under2007; Section 706 limits any increaseSeptember 30, 2007.


et eligible for MedicareDepartment of Defense contracts forin premiums for TRICARE for
medical care for retirees, dependents,reservists to 2.2 percent.
and survivors between April 1, 2006,
and December 31, 2007 as well as in
enrollment premiums for TRICARE
for reservists.

CRS-63
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
icare Mail Order Pharmacy Requirement and Retail Pharmacy Co-payments
Section 731 limits co-pays in theSection 702 requires use of theContains neither provision
TRICARE mail-order program to noTRICARE mail-order program to
more than the co-pays for generic andrefill most long-term maintenance
formulary drugs in military hospitalsmedications, unless waived by the
and clinics (currently zero) and limitsSecretary of Defense based on
co-pays for the TRICARE retailclinical need and eliminates copays
pharmacy program to $6 for genericfor most drugs in the mail order
iki/CRS-RL33405drugs, $16 for formulary drugs and$22 for non-formulary drugs.program.
g/w
s.or of Reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan Annuities (SBP) by Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
leak
://wikiNoneSec. 642 repeals the offset undercurrent law of SBP benefits by theNot included
httpamount of VA compensation.
ncurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and VA Disability Benefits for Retirees with Service-Connected Disabilities
ted as Total by Virtue of Unemployability
NoneSec. 649 authorizes full concurrentNot included


receipt for military retirees rated as
100% unemployable by the
Department of Veterans Affairs
effective December 31, 2004.

CRS-64
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
partment of Defense Contributions to the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
Section 589 (1) changes the formulaSection 641 changes the formula forSection 592 adopts the House
for contributions to the militarycontributions to the militarychanges in the formula for health-
retirement fund for health care toretirement fund for health care tocare related contributions to the
exclude cadets, midshipmen, andexclude cadets and midshipmen andmilitary retirement fund but rejects
certain reservists and (2) prohibitsto limit contributions for mobilizedthe House provision that would
using DOD funds to make thereservists to part-time rates.prohibit DOD from making the
contributions. contributions.
iki/CRS-RL33405er Protection
g/w
s.orNoneSection 1089 would amend Title 5None


leakU.S. Code to expand protections for
://wikiFederal employees who discloseinformation on violations of law;
httpwaste, mismanagement, or abuse of
authority; threats to public health or
safety; or certain false statements to
Congress.

CRS-65
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
nk and Responsibilities of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
Section 594(b)) would direct theSections 931-933 would elevate theSection 529 directs the Commission
Commission on the National Guardgrade of the Chief of the Nationalon the National Guard and the
and Reserves to study and report toGuard Bureau to general and makeReserves to study, assess, and report
Congress on whether the Chief of thethe Chief the principal advisor to theon matters proposed in the House and
National Guard Bureau should serveSecretary of Defense and theSenate provisions and on the
in the grade of general and whetherChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffadvisability and feasibility of
Department of Defense processes areon National Guard matters; requireauthorizing National Guard officers
iki/CRS-RL33405adequate for determining theequipment and funding necessary forthe Chief to identify gaps betweenFederal and State capabilities toto serve in both Federal status undertitle 10, U.S. Code, and State status
g/wthe National Guard to perform itsprepare for and respond tounder title 32, U.S. Code, to unify
s.or
leakresponsibilities – these proposals areemergencies and makecommand of units that are composed
included in H.R. 5200, the “Defenserecommendations to the Secretary ofof both active-duty members and
://wikiEnhancement and National GuardDefense on the provision of militaryNational Guard personnel.


httpEmpowerment Act of 2006”.assistance to civil authorities; and
require that the position of Deputy
Commander, U.S. Northern
Command, be filled by a National
Guard officer eligible for promotion
to the grade of lieutenant general.

CRS-66
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
ct/Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies
NoneSection 1042 amends Chapter 15 ofSection 1072 includes all of the
Title 10 U.S. Code, known as the Senate revisions of the Insurrection
“Insurrection Act,” to allow theAct with an amendment to clarify and
President to employ the armedexpand the President’s authority to
forces, including the National Guard,call up reserves.
not only to suppress an insurrection
or domestic violence, as permitted by
iki/CRS-RL33405current law, but also to restore publicorder and enforce the laws when, as a
g/wresult of natural disaster, terrorist
s.or
leakattacks, or other emergency, State
authorities are incapable of
://wikimaintaining public order.
http the Military
Section 590 provides that anyNoneHouse recedes, but report language
military chaplain shall have therequires the Army and Navy to
prerogative to pray according to therescind recent guidance on prayer
dictates of the chaplain’s ownand return to earlier guidance.


conscience, except as must be limited
by military necessity.

CRS-67
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
members of the Armed Forces to Assist in Border Security and Customs Enforcement
Section 1026 would authorize theSection 1044 would authorize theNone
Secretary of Defense to assignGovernor of a State, with the
members of the Armed Forces toapproval of the Secretary of Defense,
assist the Bureau of Customs andto order any units or personnel of the
Border Protection and the UnitedNational Guard of such State to
States Immigration and Customsannual training duty or other duty to
Enforcement with their homelandcarry out in any State along the
iki/CRS-RL33405security missions.southern land border of the UnitedStates specified activities for the
g/wpurpose of securing the border.
s.or
leakendment of the Buy American Act to Permit Use of Foreign-Supplied Specialty Metals
://wikiSection 831 would prohibitSection 822 permits foreign-suppliedSection 842 permits use of foreign-
httpprocurement of a specialty metal orspecialty metals in U.S. suppliedsupplied specialty metals when not
item critical to national securitymilitary equipment up to specifiedavailable domestically or in other
unless it is reprocessed, reused, orpercentages of the value of thespecified circumstances.


produced n the United States.equipment.

CRS-68
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
rement to Request Funding for Ongoing Operations Iraq and Afghanistan in the Budget Submitted in February of Each Year
NoneSection 1085 requires that theSection 1008 includes the Senate
President’s budget for FY2008 andlanguage with a technical
beyond, submitted at the beginning ofamendment.
each year, include a request for funds
for ongoing operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, an estimate of all funds
required in the fiscal year, and a
iki/CRS-RL33405detailed justification of the request.
g/w
s.or
leak
://wikiNoneSection 1419 prohibits the obligationor expenditure of funds within thisSection 1519 provides that no fundsmay be obligated or expended to
httpAct to establish a permanent Unitedestablish a permanent United States
States military installation or base inmilitary installation or base in Iraq.
Iraq.
Contractor Waste Fraud and Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Global War on Terrorism Operations
NoneSection 1069 requires a report fromIn report language, conferees direct
the Justice Department within 90the Attorney General to assess the
days investigations of contractorlevel of resources devoted to
waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq andinvestigating and prosecuting alleged
Afghanistan and in the global war onfraud cases in Iraq and Afghanistan
terror.and in the global war on terror.



CRS-69
questHouse AuthorizationSenate AuthorizationConference Authorization
an Aircraft Carrier and Reduction to 11 Deployable Carriers
NoneSection 1011eliminates theSection 1011 reduces the minimum
ent to maintain no fewerrequirement for the Navy to maintainnumber of operational aircraft
no fewer than 12 operational aircraftcarriers required by law to 11.
carriers.
rocurement of F-22 Fighter Aircraft
quests approval of multi-yearSection134 authorizes a 3-yearSection 146 authorizes a multiyearSection 134 authorizes multiyear
iki/CRS-RL33405ent of F-22s.multiyear contract for procurement ofcontract for the procurement of up toprocurement but requires the
g/wup to 60 F-22A Raptor fighter60 F-22A fighter aircraft.Secretary of Defense to certify that
s.oraircraft.the program meets the requirements
leakfor a multiyear contract in Section
://wiki2306b of Title 10 U.S. Code.


http

Appendix A: Additional Tables
Table A1. Administration Projection of National Defense Funding,
FY2007-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
Military Personnel115,824113,147114,603117,879121,166124,589
Operation and Maintenance178,346152,646159,338165,260171,925174,523
Procurement 86,185 84,197 99,776 108,622 111,708 117,722
Research, Development, Test,71,04673,44474,38875,12873,23270,626
and Evaluation
Military Construction8,93612,61312,87212,59211,95710,644
Family Housing4,4394,0853,1823,1082,9602,967
Other 3 ,374 1,118 31 1,178 949 3,150
Anticipated Additional Funding70,00050,000----
for War on Terror /a/
051 Subtotal, Department of538,150491,250464,190483,767493,897504,221
Defense — Military
053 Atomic energy defense18,10117,01716,23816,60816,38816,736
activities
054 Defense-related activities5,5644,7584,7944,8784,9795,150
Total, National defense561,815513,025485,222505,253515,264526,107
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States
Government, FY2007, February 2006; Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates,
Fiscal Year 2007, March 2006.
No te:
a. In the FY2006 column, the Administration included a “placeholder” amount of $70 billion for
FY2006 supplemental appropriations that were requested later in February of 2005 and a placeholder
of $50 billion for a “bridge fund” in FY2007 to be added to the regular appropriations bill.
Subsequently, in May, congress approved $67.7 billion in FY2006 supplemental appropriations and,
in September, approved a $70 billion FY2007 “bridge fund.”



Table A2. Proposed Missile Defense Funding, FY2007-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
To t a l
FY07-
PE Number and TitleFY2007FY2008FY2009FY2010FY201111
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) RDT&E
0603175C Ballistic Missile Defense2071832142232281,055
T e c hno l o gy
0603881C Ballistic Missile Defense1,0389046827544693,847
Terminal Defense Segment
0603882C Ballistic Missile Defense2,8772,6502,3972,1481,68511,758
Midcourse Defense Segment
0603883C Ballistic Missile Defense6325774564576872,809
Boost Defense Segment
0603884C Ballistic Missile Defense5155896473262202,298
Senso r s
0603886C Ballistic Missile Defense4064258951,2021,6754,603
System Interceptors
0603888C Ballistic Missile Defense6005956296356563,114
Test and Targets (includes MILCON)
0603889C Ballistic Missile Defense5075065105075132,542
Products
0603890C Ballistic Missile Defense4735015245555732,626
System Core
0603891C Special Programs - MDA3757156307256953,140
0603892C Ballistic Missile Defense1,0329529809737994,736
Ae g i s
0603893C Space Tracking &3914277729588853,433
Surveillance System
0603894C Multiple Kill Vehicle1652863574135051,726
0603895C BMD System Space-45151167207570
Program
0901598C/ 0901585C Management10393927575438
Headquarters / PRMRF
0207998C Base Realignment and-85193-107
Closure (BRAC)
Total Missile Defense Agency9,3189,5369,95610,1219,87348,803
R&D
RDT&E Army
0604869A PATRIOT/MEADS3304605175924222,320
Combined Aggregate Program
0203801A PATRIOT Product111111121358
Improvement Program
RDT&E The Joint Staff
0605126J Joint Theater Air and5254555658275
Missile Defense Organization
Total Army, Joint Staff R&D3935245836604922,653
Procurement Army
PATRIOT PAC-3489473479001,441
PATRIOT/MEADS Combined090654306741,259


Aggregate Program

To t a l
FY07-
PE Number and TitleFY2007FY2008FY2009FY2010FY201111
PATRIOT Modifications7077505456307
Subtotal, Army Procurement5596395944847313,006
Operation and Support
PE Air Force Military Personnel8899942
PE Air Force Operations and1234333435148
Maintena nc e
PE Air Force Other Procurement1110182657
PE Army Operations and6870717375358
Maintena nc e
PE Army Natl Guard Military2425262626126
P e r s o nne l
PE Army Natl Guard Operations and 000001
Maintenance
PE Navy Operations and2424252324120
Maintena nc e
Subtotal Operation & Support138173164183195852
Grand Total Missile Defense R&D,10,40910,87111,29611,44811,29155,314
Procurement, O&S
Sources: Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2007: Missile Defense
Agency, and other budget justification material.
Table A3. Authorized and Actual Active Duty End-Strength,
FY2004-FY2007
(number of personnel at the end of each fiscal year)
Marine Air To t a l
Army Na v y Co rps Force Activ e
FY2004 Actual482,400373,800175,000359,3001,390,500
FY2005 Authorized502,400365,900178,000359,7001,406,000
FY2005 Actual492,728362,941180,029353,6961,389,394
FY2006 Authorized512,400352,700179,000357,4001,401,500
FY2007 Request482,400340,700175,000334,2001,332,300
FY2007 House512,400340,700180,000334,2001,367,300
FY2007 House vs Request+30,0000+5,0000+35,000
FY2007 Senate512,400340,700180,000334,2001,367,300
FY2007 Senate vs Request+30,0000+5,0000+35,000
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2007: Appendix, Feb. 2006, p. 245; H.Rept. 109-452; S.Rept. 109-254.



CRS-73
Table A4. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapon Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
y/Marine Corps
ed Recon Helicopter18141.4132.818141.4132.818141.4132.818101.8132.8Conf cuts $40 mn due to schedule risk.
ht Utility Helicopter39198.7 39198.7 39198.7 39198.7
iki/CRS-RL33405-60 Blackhawk Helicopter38740.4127.038870.4127.038740.4127.038767.1127.0House adds $115 mn for Army Reserveaircraft and $15 mn for engine upgrade. Conf
g/wadds $19 mn for Reserve and $7.7 mn for
s.or up gr a d e .
leak-64 Apache Helo Mods 794.6123.4 801.6123.4 794.6123.4 794.6123.4House adds $7 mn in proc for upgrades.
://wiki-47 Helicopter Mods 620.013.1 621.913.1 620.013.1 620.913.1
http2 Bradley Vehicle Mods 359.7 506.7 597.7 359.7 House adds $147 mn to program. Senate adds
$238 mn.
1 Abrams Tank Mods23536.012.723482.412.723707.012.723536.012.7House shifts $182.5 mn to Title XV
emergency funds, adds $128.9 mn to
program.* Senate adds $170 mn.
ker Armored Vehicle100796.05.4100796.015.4100796.05.4100796.05.4House adds $10 mn in R&D.
ure Combat System 3,745.6 3,419.8 3,745.6 3,491.6House cuts $325.8 mn in R&D, conf cuts
$254 mn.
lti-Purpose Veh.617.4 582.6 617.4 617.4 House shifts $34.8 mn to Title XV emergency
fund s. *
ily of Medium Tact. Veh. 695.11.9 695.12.3 695.11.9 695.11.9
ily of Heavy Tactical Veh. 353.24.0 353.24.0 353.24.0 353.24.0



CRS-74
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
ored Security Vehicle 155.5 77.7 155.5 155.5 House shifts $77.5 mn to Title XV emergency
fund s. *
y Expanded Tactical Truck 220.4 110.2 220.4 220.4 House shifts $110.2 to Title XV emergency
fund s. *
ighter Information 158.2 118.2100.0158.2 128.2House cuts $40 mn in R&D. Senate adds
ork-Tactical$100 mn in procurement. Conf cuts $30 mn
in R&D.
iki/CRS-RL33405dge to Future Networks 340.2 340.2 240.2 340.2 Senate cuts $100 mn.
g/wt Tactical Radio System 1.3832.3 1.3828.31.3832.31.3832.3
s.orary Fighting Vehicle15256.2188.315256.2188.315256.2188.315256.2188.3
leakilding
://wiki21 Carrier Replacementram 784.1309.1 784.1309.1834.1309.1794.1309.1Senate adds $50 mn for long-lead items for 3ships, conf adds $10 mn.
httpinia Class Submarine12,452.1169.612,852.1214.612,452.1234.612,852.1224.2House adds $400 mn in advance procurement
for 2nd ship in FY2009 and $45 mn in R&D.
Senate adds $65 mn in R&D for affordable
design. Conf adds $400 mn in adv proc, $55
mn in R&D.
efueling Overhaul1,071.6 1,071.6 1,091.6 1,071.6 Senate adds $20 mn for defueling facility
sile Submarine Conversion 226.2 226.2 226.2 226.2
1000 Destroyer22,568.1793.312,568.1818.322,568.1793.322,568.1810.8House provides requested proc funding, but
specifies funds are to fully fund one ship
rather than to partially fund 2 ships. Senate
and conf permit split funding as requested.
51 Destroyer 355.8 555.8 355.8 405.8 House adds $200 mn for ship modernization,
conf adds $50 mn.



CRS-75
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
S Littoral Combat Ship2520.7319.72520.7319.72520.7319.72520.7319.7
-17 Amphibious Ship 297.5 297.5 11,582.5 297.5 Senate adds $1.6 bn for 1 ship, cuts $298 mn
for adv. proc. Conf supports request.
A(R) Amphibious Ship11,135.934.511,135.934.511,310.934.511,135.934.5Senate adds $175 mn adv. proc.
r Year Shipbuilding 577.8 577.8 557.8 557.8 Senate and conf cut $20 mn.
er Shipbuilding 588.7 593.3 558.7 591.7
KE Cargo Ship1455.0 1455.0 1455.0 Senate eliminates funding.
iki/CRS-RL33405tal Shipbuilding711,033.6 611,638.2 712,058.6 711,476.6
g/w
s.ornt Strike Fighter, AF51,015.01,999.15932.02,408.6 60.02,199.54875.02,170.6House cuts $83 mn from advance
leakprocurement to reduce concurrency. Senate
cuts all procurement except $60 mn in adv
://wikiproc. Conf cuts $140 mn and one aircraft
httpfrom proc. House adds $408 mn in R&D foralternative engine, Senate adds $204 mn, conf
adds $170 mn.
nt Strike Fighter, Navy 245.02,031.0 92.02,031.0 2,231.4 123.02,201.0House cuts $153 mn from adv proc to reduce
concurrency. Senate eliminates $245 mn in
adv proc to reduce production rate. Conf cuts
$122 mn from adv proc to slow program.
Senate adds $200 mn in R&D for alternative
engine, conf adds $170 mn.
ighter, AF 2,197.4584.3203,597.4584.320 3,597.4584.3203,597.4584.3House adds $1.4 bn to support full funding of
20 aircraft. Senate adds $1.6 bn for full
funding, cuts $200 mn in adv proc. Conf
adds $1.4 bn for full funding of 20 aircraft.



CRS-76
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
argo Aircraft, AF122,887.6173.8153,187.4173.8142,887.6173.8122,539.6173.8House adds $300 mn for 3 aircraft. Senate
adds $400 mn for 2 aircraft, cuts $433 mn for
settlement fees, adds $33 mn for adv proc.
Conf cuts $348 mn for termination fees.
argo Aircraft, AF9787.3288.89787.3288.89787.3288.89787.3288.8
130J Aircraft, Navy4298.9 4298.9 4298.9 4298.9
ircraft Mods, AF 256.7 276.0 256.7 264.0
iki/CRS-RL33405argo Aircraft Mods, AF 223.1150.2 289.8150.2 223.1150.2 223.1150.2House adds $44.5 mn for upgrades and $22.2mn for adv proc.
g/wk UAV, AF6493.2247.76493.2247.76493.2247.75443.2247.7Conf cuts $50 mn, but adds funds in Title XV.
s.orV, AF26229.161.526114.561.526229.161.526152.461.5House shifts $114.6 mn to Title XV
leakemergency funding.* Conf cuts $77 mn for
://wikiSOF capability.18G Aircraft, Navy12905.2372.412905.2372.412905.2372.412905.2372.4
http-18E/F Fighter, Navy302,341.231.1302,341.248.2302,341.231.1302,341.238.7
ilt Rotor Aircraft, Navy141,584.5268.5141,584.5268.5141,584.5268.5141,584.5268.5
22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, AF2243.026.62243.026.62243.026.62243.026.6
-60S Helicopter, Navy18548.683.718548.683.726660.683.718548.683.7Senate adds $112 mn for 8 aircraft.
-60R Helicopter, Navy25915.719.325915.719.326943.719.325915.719.3Senate adds $28 mn for 1 aircraft.
Hawkeye Aircraft, Navy2203.61.52203.61.52203.61.52203.61.5
oshawk Trainer, Navy12411.3 12411.3 10347.3 12411.3 Senate cuts $32 mn for 2 aircraft.
TS Trainer Aircraft, AF48305.12.248305.12.248305.12.248305.12.2
TS Trainer Aircraft, Navy21146.1 25175.0 21146.1 21146.1 House adds $28.9 mn for 4 aircraft.
ssile s/Spa c e
ent II Missile Mods, Navy 957.6124.5 919.6127.0 957.6124.5 919.6124.5House and conf cut $38 mn from proc for
conversion to conventional warhead.



CRS-77
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n Autho r izatio n
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
ical Tomahawk, Navy350354.618.6350354.618.6350354.618.6350354.618.6
er Objective System, 655.3 655.3 655.3 655.3
y
ir-to-Surface Standoff Msl.,234187.240.9234187.240.9234187.240.9234187.240.9
uteman III Mods, AF 691.745.5 691.745.5 711.745.5 702.745.5Senate adds $20 mn, conf adds $11 mn for
propulsion replacement.
iki/CRS-RL33405anced EHF Satellite, AF633.3 633.3 633.3 633.3 eband Gapfiller Satellite,1414.437.71414.437.71414.446.21414.437.7Senate adds $8.5 mn in R&D for command
g/wand control.
s.orlved Expendable Launch4936.518.54936.518.54931.518.54936.518.5
leakicle, AF
://wikiBased Infrared System- AF 668.9 668.9 668.9 668.9
httpsformational 867.1 787.1 797.1 867.1House cuts $80 mn and Senate cuts $70 mn
munications Satellite, AFdue to excessive risk.
adar, AF266.4 236.4 200.0 266.4House cuts $30 mn and Senate cuts $66 mn
due to excessive risk.
onal Guard and Reserve
& Reserve Equipment 318.0 318.0 House and conf add $318 mn.
: DOD; H.Rept. 109-452; S.Rept. 109-254.
Title XV of the House bill, Title XIV of the Senate bill, and Title XV of the conference agreement authorize emergency funding for overseas operations.



CRS-78
Table A5. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapon Programs: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
y/Marine Corps
med Recon Helicopter18141.4132.8 70.7112.812101.8132.812101.8132.8House cuts $70.7 in proc for schedule
risk, cuts $20 mn in R&D. Senate anc
iki/CRS-RL33405conf. cut $39.6 mn in proc.ht Utility Helicopter39198.7 39198.7 1691.2 167.2 Senate cuts $108 mn for 23 aircraft.
g/wConf. cuts $32 mn due to delays.
s.or-60 Blackhawk Helicopter38740.4127.039767.1127.038740.4127.038763.7127.0House adds $19 mn for 1 Medevac
leakversion for reserve. Conf. adds $23
://wikimn for mods.-64 Apache Helo Mods 794.6123.4 794.6123.4 794.6123.4 797.0123.4
http-47 Helicopter Mods 620.013.1 620.017.1620.028.1 621.029.3
2 Bradley Vehicle Mods 359.7 359.74.0 281.7 281.6Senate and conf. cut $78 mn, adds
funds in Title IX.
1 Abrams Tank Mods23536.012.7 358.512.723537.012.7 359.514.5House and conf shift $177 mn to Title
IX.
ker Armored Vehicle100796.05.4100800.09.4100796.05.4 798.67.2
ture Combat System3,745.6 3,419.8 3,502.8 3,426.4House cuts $326 mn citing better cost
controls. Senate cuts $254 mn. Conf
cuts $326 mn.
lti-Purpose Veh.617.4 582.6 623.3 586.5 House shifts $35 mn to Title IX.
Senate adds $6 mn. Conf. shifts $35
mn, adds $4 mn.



CRS-79
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
ily of Medium Tact. Veh. 695.11.9 695.15.9 692.113.9 692.19.7
ily of Heavy Tactical Veh. 353.24.0 353.28.7353.217.4 353.213.5
mored Security Vehicle 155.5 77.7 155.5 77.7 House and conf. shift $78 mn to Title
IX.
y Expanded Tactical Truck 220.4 110.2 220.4 111.2 House and conf. shift $110 mn to Title
IX.
ighter Information 158.2 118.2 128.2 123.2House cuts $40 mn, Senate cuts $30
ork-Tacticalmn. Conf cuts $35 mn.
iki/CRS-RL33405dge to Future Networks 340.2 347.4 340.2 346.0
g/wnt Tactical Radio System 1.3832.3 1.3797.3 832.3 797.3House cuts $35 mn in R&D. Senate
s.orand conf. cut proc. Conf cuts $35 mn
leakin R&D and transfers remainder from
Army to Navy.
://wikipeditionary Fighting Vehicle15256.2188.315192.2194.915256.2188.3 349.2House cuts $64 mn in proc for
httpschedule slip. Conf cuts $101 mn in
proc and shifts remaining $155 mn to
R&D .
ilding
21 Carrier Replacement 784.1309.1 784.1313.6 784.1309.1 791.9309.1
ram
inia Class Submarine12,452.1169.612,452.1190.012,452.1216.812,452.1202.1House adds $20 mn, Senate adds $47
mn in R&D.
rrier Refueling Overhaul 1,071.6 1,071.6 1,071.6 1,071.6
ssile Submarine Conversion 226.2 226.2 204.1 204.1 Senate and conf cut $22 mn in adv
proc due to delays.
(X) Destroyer22,568.1793.312,568.1807.322,568.1794.312,568.1826.2House provides same amount for proc



CRS-80
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
but to fully fund one ship rather than
partially fund two, Senate and conf
permit split funding.
51 Destroyer 355.8 405.8 355.8 385.8 House adds $50 mn for modernization
program, conf adds $30 mn.
S Littoral Combat Ship2520.7319.72520.7332.31300.7321.52520.7330.7Senate cuts $220 mn for one ship
citing inaccurate Navy cost figures.
D-17 Amphibious Ship 297.5 297.5 297.5 297.5
iki/CRS-RL33405A(R) Amphibious Ship11,135.934.511,135.934.511,135.934.511,135.934.5
g/wor Year Shipbuilding 577.8 436.4 557.8 512.8 House cuts $141 mn, Senate cuts $20
s.ormn, conf cuts $65 mn for delays.
leakGS Oceanographic Ship1117.0 1117.0 Senate adds $117 mn for 1 ship.
er Shipbuilding 588.7 593.2 548.7 521.6
://wikiKE Cargo Ship1455.0 1455.0 1455.0 Senate eliminates funding.
httptal Shipbuilding711,033.6 610,946.7 610,393.5 711,034.1
nt Strike Fighter, AF51,015.01,999.14803.02,200.6 2,137.4 574.02,138.4House cuts $140 mn for 1 aircraft,
cuts $72 mn in adv proc, adds $200
mn in R&D for alternate engine.
Senate eliminates proc funds and, in
R&D, adds $170 mn for 2nd engine,
cuts $32 mn for excess accumulation
of withheld awards fees. In proc.,
conf. cuts $390 mn for 2 aircraft,
leaving $480 mn for 3, and cuts $51
mn in adv proc, leaving $94 mn for 6



CRS-81
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
aircraft in FY2008. In R&D, conf
adds $170 mn for 2nd engine, cuts
$32 mn for excessive accumulation of
award fees.
nt Strike Fighter, Navy 245.02,031.0 123.02,033.7 2,172.3 125.02,172.1Request is $245 mn in adv proc for 4
aircraft in FY2008. House cuts $122
mn in for 2 aircraft. Senate eliminates
adv proc funds. Conf cuts $120 mn in
iki/CRS-RL33405adv proc, leaving $125 mn for 2
g/waircraft in FY2008. In R&D, Senate
s.oradds $170 mn in R&D for 2nd engine,
leakcuts $32 mn for excess awards fee.
ighter, AF 2,197.4584.3203,597.4584.3203,547.8584.3203,397.8584.3House, Senate and conf. add $1.4 bn
://wikifor full funding for 20 aircraft. Senate
httpcut $67 mn in adv proc for price
reduction. Conf adds $210 mn for
multi-year procurement economic
order quantity.
argo Aircraft, AF122,887.6173.8122,497.6173.8122,558.1173.8 2,516.1173.8House cuts $390 mn requested for
shutdown. Senate shifts $329 mn for
shutdown to Title IX to buy aircraft.
Conf. cuts $390 mn for shutdown, and
adds $2.1 billion for 10 aircraft in
Title IX -- not shown here.
argo Aircraft, AF9787.3288.89787.3258.39787.3290.89787.3273.7House cuts $39 mn, Senate cuts $100
mn, conf cuts $54 mn for mods.
-130J Aircraft, Navy4298.94298.92172.32172.3Senate and conf cut $127 mn for 2
aircraft.



CRS-82
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
ircraft Mods, AF 256.7 217.7 195.8 256.7Senate cuts $60.9 mn.
argo Aircraft Mods, AF 223.1150.2 223.1152.2 235.1150.2 228.5151.2Senate adds $12 mn for mods, conf
adds $5 mn.
Hawk UAV, AF6493.2247.74387.2248.76443.2247.76449.9248.7House cuts $88 mn for 2 aircraft and
$18 mn in adv proc. Senate cuts $50
mn, conf cuts $43 mn.
V, AF26229.161.5 37.964.026152.467.5 37.968.2House shifts $115 mn to Title IX, cuts
$77 mn due to SOF increase. Senate
iki/CRS-RL33405cuts $77 mn. Conf cuts $191 mn from
g/wregular budget and adds $197 mn in
s.orTitle IX , shown in Table xx below.
leak-18G Aircraft, Navy12905.2372.4 126.2375.48647.8372.48647.8373.7House cuts $779 to defer production.
Senate and conf cut $257 mn for 4
://wikiaircraft, add 4 to F/A-18E/F.
http-18E/F Fighter, Navy302,341.231.1422,999.338.7342,560.241.6342,560.239.4House adds $658 mn for 12 additional
aircraft. Senate and conf add $219 mn
for 4 aircraft.
22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, Navy141,584.5268.5141,584.5268.5141,574.5268.5141,574.5268.5
-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, AF2243.026.62243.026.62243.026.62243.026.6
-60S Helicopter, Navy18548.683.718548.683.718548.683.718548.683.7
-60R Helicopter, Navy25915.719.325921.119.325915.719.325920.019.3
Hawkeye Aircraft, Navy2203.61.52203.66.22203.67.52203.69.8
oshawk Trainer, Navy12411.3 12411.3 10347.3 12412.3 Senate cuts $64 mn for 2 aircraft.
TS Trainer Aircraft, AF48305.12.248305.12.248305.12.248305.12.2
TS Trainer Aircraft, Navy21146.1 21146.1 21146.1 21146.1



CRS-83
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
ssile s/Spa c e
dent II Missile Mods, Navy 957.6124.5 919.6129.5 919.6124.5 919.6127.2House, Senate, and conf cut $38 mn in
procurement for convention warhead
conversion.
ote: Conventional Warhead 38.089.0 30.0 25.0House and Senate reject conventional
Trident II Missiles]warhead for Trident. House and conf
provide R&D funding for alternative
iki/CRS-RL33405global strike systems.
g/wical Tomahawk, Navy350354.618.6350354.625.6350354.618.6350354.624.2
s.orer Objective System, 655.3 655.3 655.3 655.3
leaky
ir-to-Surface Standoff Msl.,234187.240.9234187.240.9234147.240.9 167.240.9Senate cuts $40 mn in proc, conf cuts
://wiki$20 mn.
httpnuteman III Mods, AF 691.745.5 625.365.0 691.745.5 651.361.1House cuts $66 mn for propulsion
replacement program, adds $15 mn in
R&D for conventional warhead study.
Senate adds $11 mn for propulsion
replacement mod program. Conf cuts
$46 mn for replacement program,
adds $11 mn for replacement mod
program.
vanced EHF Satellite, AF633.3633.3 633.3 633.3
deband Gapfiller Satellite, AF1414.437.71414.437.71414.437.7 414.437.7
olved Expendable Launch4936.518.54692.320.54936.518.5 856.519.8House cuts $244 mn due to launch
icle, AFdelays. Conf cuts $80 mn.
ace-Based Infrared System- 668.9 668.9 668.9 668.9



CRS-84
Ho use Senate Co nference
Re q ue s t Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns Appropriatio ns
P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D P r ocur ement R&D
Comments# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
AF
sformational 867.1 767.1 637.1 737.1House cuts $100 mn for delays.
mmunications Satellite, AFSenate cuts $230 mn. Conf cuts $130
mn .
ace Radar, AF266.4 200.0 166.4 186.4House cuts $66 mn to moderate pace
of program. Senate cuts $100 mn.
Conf cuts $80 mn.
tional Guard and Reserve Equipment
iki/CRS-RL33405nal Guard and Reserve 500.0 340.0 290.0 House adds $500 mn, Senate adds
g/wipment$340 mn, conf adds $290 mn.
s.or
leak: DOD; House Appropriations Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee.
Title IX of House, Senate, and conference bills appropriate funding for overseas operations.


://wiki
http

Table A6. Emergency Funding, Authorization and Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
Aut hori z at i on A ppropri at i ons
House S enat e C onf . House S enat e C onf .
Military Personnel9,362.87,335.98,107.05,992.1 5,760.8 5,386.5
Army6,869.95,467.06,464.84,346.75,054.5 4,346.7
Army Reserve150.0 90.9 87.7
Army National Guard100.0 251.0251.0214.1296.0
Navy 333.0 321.0 193.0 229.1 114.5 143.3
Navy Reserve10.0
Marine Corps749.4466.1568.0495.5142.3145.6
Marine Reserve15.415.4
Air Force1,071.81,081.8592.5659.8129.0351.8
Air National Guard36.7 6.7
Benefits52.0 31.0
Operation and Maintenance31,983.332,246.238,102.533,409.4 34,526.439,090.0
Army 22,397.0 22,124.5 28,045.4 24,280.0 24,037.2 28,364.1
Army Reserve 0.5 211.6211.6
Army National Guard50.059.0221.5221.5204.0424.0
Navy 1,834.6 2 ,349.6 2 ,007.9 1 ,954.1 1 ,284.2 1 ,615.3
Navy Reserve8.09.9
Marine Corps1,485.91,544.92,257.11,781.51,809.52,689.0
Marine Corps Reserve 48.0
Air Force2,823.02,779.92,478.92,987.11,940.62,688.2
Air Force Reserve65.065.0
Air National Guard15.4 2.0 200.0200.0
Defense-Wide 3,377.4 3 ,388.4 1,544.6 2 ,186.7 2 ,383.2 2 ,775.0
Total Procurement5,166.32,126.716,605.85,598.5 7,255.1 19,825.8
Army Procurement3,773.81,755.19,235.7 3,562.13,421.810,096.3
Aircraft 232.4 404.1 1 ,524.3 132.4 556.0 1 ,461.3
Missiles 450.03.2
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles1,029.7214.43,022.81,214.71,048.33,393.2
Ammunition328.348.6275.2 237.8
Other 2 ,183.4 686.6 4 ,636.8 1 ,939.8 1 ,817.5 5 ,004.0
Navy/Marine Corps Procurement955.4319.85,062.8959.81,811.25,942.5
Aircraft 389.534.9153.7486.9
Weapons131.4 109.4131.4 109.4
Ammunition143.2151.4143.299.9127.9
Other44.7 14.628.9276.5320.0
Marine Corps636.1319.84,397.9621.51,281.14,898.3
Air Force Procurement296.951.82,179.7955.01,965.83,641.6
Aircraft201.6 2,174.0912.4720.12,291.3
Missiles32.7 32.725.432.7
Other 62.7 51.8 5 .7 9.9 1 ,220.3 1 ,317.6
Defense-Wide Procurement140.2 127.6121.656.3145.6
Total140.2 127.6121.656.3145.6
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation37.5 10.5 298.2407.7
Army25.5 2.6
Navy7.9110.0231.1
Air Force7.033.137.0
Defense-Wide5.0 155.1139.6



Aut hori z at i on A ppropri at i ons
House S enat e C onf . House S enat e C onf .
Other Programs3,450.28,291.28,718.85,000.0392.75,290.0
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities---------------100.0
Related Agencies 19.3 19.319.3
Revolving Funds, Fuel Prices 1,000.0373.5
Defense Health Program950.2960.2 869.2
Classified Programs2,500.03,000.02,500.0
Joint IED Defeat Fund* 2,100.02,100.0 1,920.7
Iraqi Freedom Fund* 2,231.0 50.0 4,000.050.0
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 1,446.3 1,500.0
Iraq Security Forces Fund 1,734.0 1,700.0
Grand Total50,000.050,000.071,544.650,000.0 48,233.2 70,000.0
Sources: House and Senate committee reports and conference reports.



Table A7. Appropriation of Emergency Funds for
Procurement: Line Item Detail
(thousands of dollars)
Aircraft Procurement, Army:1,461,300
CH-47 Replacement/Mods/Battle Losses (17 aircraft)511,500
AH-64 Replacement (18 aircraft)621,000
UH-60 Blackhawk — Battle Losses (15 aircraft)225,000
UH-60 Blackhawk Army National Guard (5 aircraft)95,100
Aviation Ground Support Equipment2,200
Air Traffic Control6,500
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army:3,393,230
Bradley Base Sustainment1,402,500
Abrams Integrated Management Program, incl. TUSK and IED prot.574,700
Abrams SEP M1A2, incl. Combat losses700,000
Stryker—Combat Losses82,130
Stryker Slat Armor25,000
Carrier Mods132,200
FIST Vehicle Mods130,000
Improved Recovery Vehicle272,400
MK-19 Grenade Machine Gun (40mm)10,050
M240 medium machine gun (7.62mm)21,600
M4 carbine mods15,450
M249 SAW machine gun (5.56mm)22,200
M2 50 caliber machine gun mods5,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army:237,750
CTG, 5.56MM, All Types107,300
CTG, 7.62MM, All Types56,800
CTG, .50 CAL, All Types62,550
CTG, 20MM Phalanx11,100
Other Procurement, Army:5,003,995
Tactical Trailer/Dolly Sets56,800
Semitrailer FB/BB/Cont Trans 22 ½ T87,000
Semitrailer, Tankers53,600
Up-Armor HMMWVs: M1114, M1151, M11521,074,900
Up-Armor HMMWV Fragmentation Kits and Gunner Protection Kits214,000
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles794,700
Truck, Firefighting, Tactical6,000
HMMWV Recap455,000
HEMTT ESP131,200
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles647,600
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles Trailers12,500
Armored Security Vehicles83,000
Truck, Tractor, Line Haul138,200
Items less than $5 million (tactical vehicles)8,000
Towing Device Fifth Wheel174
SINCGARS Family124,500
Radio Improved, HF Family48,200
Combat Survivor Radios8,270
Information System Security Program1,100
Force XXI Battle Command BDE and Below (FBCB2)80,000



Mortar Fire Control System6,300
NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (Space)12,700
Prophet Ground48,250
Knight Family50,000
TC AIMS II124
Night Vision Devices160,500
Fire Finder Radar9,600
CBRN Soldier Protection50,300
Tactical Unmanned Aerial System (TUAS) (MIP)50,150
Ground Standoff Mine Detection System26,400
GSTAMIDS Route Clearance Team Equipment66,100
Laundries, Showers, and Latrines12,300
Field Feeding Equipment1,800
Items less than $5 million (engineering support)800
Distribution Systems, Petroleum and Water42,600
Water Purification System800
Combat Support Medical21,900
Shop Equipment Contact Maintenance Truck (MYP)32,100
Welding Shop, Trailer MTD2,100
Items less than $5 million (maintenance equipment)25,700
Grader, MTZD, HVY10,000
Loader, Scoop Type5,000
Hydraulic Excavator2,600
Cr anes 4,200
High Mobility Engineer Excavator (HMEE)1,400
Construction Equipment ESP17,500
Generators and Associated Equipment21,600
Rough Terrain Container Handler64,500
All Terrain Lifting Arm System33,200
Integrated Family of Test Equipment4,700
Physical Security Systems1,000
Mod of In-Service Equipment (OPA 3)4,600
Fire Support C2 Family7,000
Tactical Bridge, Float Ribbon70,900
Classified Programs64,527
Single Army Logistics Enterprise (PBUSE)36,000
HMMWV and Tactical Truck Crew/Convoy Training Simulator10,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy:486,881
War Consumables34,916
P-3 Series Modifications62,500
AV-8B Attrition Recovery15,507
AV-8B Oil Tester/JETSCAN1,400
AV-8B Litening on Station 44,200
TAV-8B 30KVA Generator3,470
TAV-8B Depot Maintenance10,700
CH-46E Aircraft Sustainment11,850
CH-46E Engine Electrical Overspeed Protection3,866
CH-46E M240D Machine Gun750
CH-53E AMARC5,620
CH-53E IMDS8,900
CH-53 EAPS Seals2,100
CH-53 T-64 Engine Reliability Improvement5,100
CH-53D rate gyro1,150
H-1 Y/Z Procurement68,600



H-46 Crash Attenuating CC & AO Seats2,752
KC-130-J procurement71,800
Misc Aviation Sustainment Support Packages35,800
MV-22 Aircraft Procurement71,000
MV-22 Pre Block A to Block B Mods54,600
MV-22 Spares10,300
Weapons Procurement, Navy:109,400
Hellfire II — Marine Corps100,000
Pioneer UAV Sustainment9,400
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps:127,880
5.56mm, All Types16,437
7.62MM, All Types10,675
.50 Caliber4,947
Grenades, All Types13,145
Artillery, All Types11,956
Linear Charges, All Types4,216
40mm, All Types9,227
60mm, All Types9,876
81mm, All Types17,474
120mm, All Types11,034
Ctg 25mm, All Types1,322
9mm, All Types471
Rockets, All Types7,062
Demolition Munitions, All Types7,668
Fuzes, All Types1,136
Non Lethals1,137
Item Less Than $5 Million97
Other Procurement, Navy:319,965
Physical Security Equipment28,865
Classified Programs21,500
Construction & Maintenance Equipment48,584
Items under $5 million19,203
Material Handling Equipment1,000
Tactical Vehicles186,213
Littoral Battlespace Sensing500
Al Asad Facility Transfer14,100
Procurement, Marine Corps:4,898,269
AAV7A1 PIP39,448
Air Operations C2 Systems35,279
Amphibious Support Equipment28,257
Bridge Boat22,717
Bulk Liquid Equipment20,174
Comm Switching and Control Systems218,671
Comm & Electrical Infrastructure Support53,580
Command Post Systems102,357
Common Computer Resources40,162
Container Family7,741
Environmental Control Equipment30,998
EOD Systems652,067
Expeditionary Air Defense System2,924
Family of Construction Equipment98,914



Family of Field Feeding Systems2,598
Family of Internally Transportable Vehicles (ITV)10,845
Family of Tactical Trailers92,807
Field Medical Equipment6,902
Fire Support System43,265
HIMARS 215,350
Intelligence Support Equipment81,720
Items Less Than $5M (BLI 523000)775
Items Less Than $5M (BLI 667000)26,891
Items Less Than $5M (BLI 462000)14,183
J a ve lin 46,500
LAV PIP73,300
Logistics Vehicle Replacement48
M1A1 Firepower Enhancements1,154
Material Handling Equipment68,818
Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement15,226
Mod Kits (BLI 206100)78,266
Mod Kits (BLI 312300)159,434
Mod Kits (BLI 465200)43,185
Mod Kits (BLI 665400)7
Modular Weapon System51,590
Motor Transport Modifications163,600
Night Vision Equipment210,501
Power Equipment Assorted12,569
Radar Systems21,093
Radio Systems854,719
Repair and Test Equipment96,609
Tactical Fuel Systems37,455
Training Devices165,653
Unit Operations Center267,200
Up Armored HMMWV: M1114, M1151, M1152557,521
Weapons Enhancement Program2,703
Weapons and Combat Vehicles under $5 million122,493
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force:2,291,300
C-17 Procurement (10 Aircraft)2,094,000
Predator UAV131,900
Predator UAVs for SOCOM65,400
Missile Procurement, Air Force:32,650
Predator Hellfire Missiles32,650
Other Procurement, Air Force:1,317,607
HMMWV, Up-Armored5,650
HMMWV Armored4,200
Classified Programs1,307,757
Procurement, Defense-Wide:145,555
MH-47 Service life extension program4,100
Time delay firing device/Sympathetic detonation6,000
Persistent Predator Operations and Intelligence (PPOI)13,400
Payload Integration Predator6,000
Specialized Ballistic Protection2,200
Counter-Ambush Weapons System6,300
MH-47 Radio Frequency countermeasures8,000



M134 DT Miny-Gun Replacement12,400
Miniature Milti-Band Beacons8,900
Small Arms-Laser Acquisition Marker5,300
SU-232 / PAS Thermal Clip On Night Vision Device6,100
Classified Programs66,855
Total Procurement19,825,782
Sources: H.Rept. 109-452; S.Rept. 109-254.



For Additional Reading
CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on
Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other
International Activities; Additional Katrina Hurricane Relief, coordinated by Paul
M. Irwin and Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RS22455, Military Operations: Precedents for Funding Contingency
Operations in Regular or in Supplemental Appropriations Bills, by Stephen
Daggett.
CRS Report 98-756C, Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills:
FY1970-FY2006, by Thomas Coipuram Jr.
FY2007 Defense Budget Issues for Congress: Slides from a CRS Seminar,
February 10, 2006, by Stephen Daggett, Ronald O’Rourke, and Charles A.
Henning. Available on line at
[ h ttp://www.crs.gov/products/browse/documents/W D00005.pdf] .
CRS Report RS20851, Naval Transformation: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32513, Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime
Prepositioning Ship Programs: Background and Oversight Issues 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 RL33161, The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and the Army’s
Future Combat System (FCS): Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background
and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by
Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL33390, Proposed Termination of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F136
Alternate Engine by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL33543, Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress, by
Christopher Bolkcom.



CRS Report RS20859, Air Force Transformation, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background,
Status, and Issues, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL30685, Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program, by Christopher
Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL33067, Conventional Warheads For Long-Range Ballistic
Missiles: Background and Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report RS21754, Military Forces: What is the Appropriate Size for the
United States?, by Edward F. Bruner.
CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Fees: Background and Options for
Congress, by Richard A. Best Jr.
CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by
Charles A. Henning.
CRS Report RL33432, U.S. Disposal of Chemical Weapons in the Ocean:
Background and Issues for Congress, by David Bearden.
CRS Report RS21988, Radioactive Tank Waste from the Past Production of
Nuclear Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, by David Bearden.