Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Updated May 17 2011 Congressional Research Service https crsreports congress gov R41254 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Summary The President’s FY2011 budget request released February 1 2010 requested authorization of $725 9 billion in new budget authority in the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act In addition to $548 9 billion for the regular non-war operations of the Department of Defense DOD the authorization request included $159 3 billion for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq bringing the total DOD request for FY2011 to $708 2 billion The request also included $17 7 billion for defense-related activities of the Department of Energy The President’s FY2011 DOD appropriations request totaling $709 0 billion was accompanied by a request for a supplemental FY2010 DOD appropriation of $33 7 billion The supplemental request included $33 0 billion for war costs and $655 million to pay DOD’s share of the cost of humanitarian relief operations in Haiti struck on January 12 2010 by a devastating earthquake The $548 9 billion appropriation requested for DOD’s so-called “base budget”—that is all activities other than war costs—was $18 2 billion higher than the amount appropriated for DOD non-war costs in FY2010 By DOD’s estimate this 3 4% increase would have amounted to a “real” increase of 1 8% in purchasing power after taking into account the cost of inflation On May 28 2010 the House passed H R 5136 the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 which would have authorized $725 9 billion for DOD and other defense-related activities a reduction of less than $3 million from the Administration’s request for programs covered by that legislation The House bill would have added to the budget $485 million to continue development of the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter JSF despite warnings by Defense Secretary Robert H Gates that he would recommend a veto of any bill that would continue that project An amendment adopted by the House would have repealed a 1993 law that in effect bars from military service those who are openly homosexual On June 4 2010 the Senate Armed Services Committee reported its version of the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act S 3454 S Rept 111-201 which would have authorized $725 7 billion for DOD and other defense-related activities a reduction of $240 7 million from the Administration’s request The committee bill would have repealed the “don’t ask don’t tell” law and it would not add funds for the JSF alternate engine Controversy over the “don’t ask don’t tell” repeal and other provisions blocked Senate action on S 3454 for months Meanwhile informal negotiations among senior members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees produced a compromise bill the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 H R 6523 This bill was cleared for the President on December 22 2010 and was signed by the President on January 7 2011 P L 111-383 The enacted defense authorization bill included no provision relating to the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy which was repealed by separate legislation H R 2965 P L 111-321 Neither the House nor the Senate passed any FY2011 appropriations bills before the fiscal year began on October 1 2010 so DOD—like other federal agencies—was funded through the first six months of FY2011 by a series of continuing resolutions The legislative battle over the FY2011 budget wound up on April 15 2011 when the President signed H R 1473 P L 112-10 funding Defense and other agencies through the balance of FY2011 For DOD the bill provided a total of $688 6 billion which is $20 4 billion less than the President’s request The bill included no funds for the JSF alternate engine Congressional Research Service Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Contents Most Recent Developments 1 FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act 2 Status of Legislation 4 FY2011 National Defense Budget Overview Budget Function 050 5 FY2011 War Costs and FY2010 Supplemental 6 Real Growth and “Security Agencies” 7 FY2011 DOD Base Budget 8 Projected Growth Rate and Proposed Efficiencies 10 Defense Budget as Share of Gross Domestic Product GDP 13 Long-term Planning Strategies and Budgets 14 FY2011 Base Budget Highlights and Potential Issues 16 Military Personnel 17 Military Pay Raise 18 Don’t Ask Don’t Tell 19 Military Health Care Costs 20 Procurement and R D 21 Army Combat Force Modernization Programs 22 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans 22 Aircraft Programs 25 Ballistic Missile Defense 27 Military Construction 28 Aircraft Carrier Homeport 28 Marine Corps Relocation to Guam 29 US CYBERCOM 29 State Department Role in Security Assistance 30 Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date 32 FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act H R 5136 S 3454 H R 6523 32 Military Personnel Issues Authorization 34 Sexual Assault 35 Medical Care Authorization 36 Fort Hood Shooting Incident 36 Ballistic Missile Defense Strategic Weapons and the New START Treaty Authorization 37 Shipbuilding Authorization 38 Aircraft Authorization 40 Ground Combat Vehicle and Brigade Combat Team Modernization Authorization 42 Military Construction Carrier Homeport and Guam Authorization 42 Guantanamo Bay Detainee Issues 43 Security Assistance and the State Department Authorization 43 Cybersecurity Authorization 45 FY2011 Congressional Budget Ceilings “302b Allocations” 45 FY2011 Defense Appropriations Bill 46 Military Personnel and Medical Care Issues Appropriations 49 Missile Defense and Strategic Strike Appropriations 49 Congressional Research Service Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Shipbuilding Appropriations 50 Aircraft Appropriations 50 Ground Combat Vehicles Appropriations 50 Figures Figure 1 Total DOD Appropriations FY2001-FY2011 9 Figure 2 DOD Budget Excluding Post-9 11 War Costs FY1948-FY2014 10 Figure 3 Proposed Spending Categories Relevant to a Budget ‘Freeze’ 13 Figure 4 DOD Appropriations as Share of GDP FY1976-2015 14 Figure 5 Authorized Active Duty End Strength FY1987-FY2011 18 Tables Table 1 Summary DOD Funding in the FY2011 National Defense Authorization H R 5136 S 3454 H R 6523 3 Table 2 National Defense Authorization Act FY2011 H R 5136 S 3454 H R 6523 4 Table 3 FY2011 DOD Appropriations Bill S 3800 H R 1473 4 Table 4 FY2011 National Defense Budget Request Function 050 5 Table 5 FY2009-FY2011 DOD Discretionary Appropriations Including Military Construction and DOD Family Housing 6 Table 6 DOD War Funding FY2001-FY2011 Request 7 Table 7 Security Agency and Non-security Agency Discretionary Budget Authority Enacted and Requested FY2009-FY2011 8 Table 8 Projected and Alternative DOD Base Budgets FY2011-FY2015 11 Table 9 Defense Outlays as Share of GDP FY2008-FY2011 14 Table 10 DOD Base Budget Discretionary Funding Request by Title FY2010-FY2011 17 Table 11 FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act H R 5136 S 3454 H R 6523 33 Table 12 FY2011 Appropriations Subcommittee Discretionary Spending Ceilings “302 b Allocations” 46 Table 13 FY2011 Department of Defense Appropriations unnumbered House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee draft bill S 3800 H R 1473 48 Table A-1 FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act by account 51 Table A-2 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Missile Defense Funding Authorization 58 Table A-3 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Missile Defense Funding Appropriations 61 Table A-4 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Army and Marine Corps Programs Authorization 65 Table A-5 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Army and Marine Corps Programs Appropriation 67 Congressional Research Service Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Table A-6 Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Shipbuilding Programs Authorization 69 Table A-7 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Shipbuilding Programs Appropriations 70 Table A-8 Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Navy Marine Corps and Air Force Aircraft Programs Authorization 72 Table A-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UAVs 75 Table A-10 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Navy Marine and Air Force Aircraft Programs Appropriation 76 Appendixes Appendix Selected Program Summary Tables 51 Contacts Author Information 80 Congressional Research Service Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Most Recent Developments Until FY2011 was more than half over the Department of Defense DOD —like all other federal agencies that depend on appropriated funds—was funded by a series of continuing resolutions which in general allowed the agencies to keep spending money at what had been their rate of expenditure during FY2010 These temporary funding measures also included some restrictions on agencies’ activities including a prohibition on the start of any new programs unless specifically allowed for On April 15 2011 the President signed an omnibus funding bill for the balance of FY2011 H R 1473 P L 112-10 which incorporated a fully detailed FY2011 DOD appropriations bill providing a total of $659 9 billion for all DOD activities except military construction 1 This amounted to a reduction of $18 2 billion from the total the President had requested for the FY2011 DOD appropriations bill For DOD’s military construction budget which is funded in a separate appropriations bill that also pays for the Department of Veterans Affairs and certain other agencies H R 1473 provided $17 8 billion a reduction of $2 2 billion from the President’s request Military Construction Appropriations Report This report deals with military construction issues raised by the annual defense authorization act However for an analysis of military construction appropriations issues see CRS Report R41345 Military Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies FY2011 Appropriations by Daniel H Else Christine Scott and Sidath Viranga Panangala As enacted the section of H R 1473 that corresponded to a regular annual DOD appropriations bill incorporated $4 4 billion worth of reductions to the President’s request that were applied to broad categories of spending rather than to specific programs including     $2 0 billion rescinded from DOD funds appropriated for prior fiscal years 2 A total of $1 5 billion cut proportionately from every project and program funded by the bill’s accounts for Operations and Maintenance Procurement and Research and Development $723 million from the total appropriated for civilian pay and $125 million from the total appropriated for federally funded research and development corporations FFRDCs such as RAND The bill also made significant reductions to the amounts requested for some major weapons programs including  $1 7 billion cut from the $10 2 billion requested for continued development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 1 In addition to the amounts appropriated for DOD in this bill the total amount appropriated for DOD in FY2011 included $10 9 billion for the accrual payments that fund the so-called “Tricare for Life” program which extends coverage under the military health care program to Medicare-eligible military retirees and their dependents The annual Tricare for Life accrual payment based on actuarial calculations is made on the basis of a permanent appropriation rather than as an element of the annual appropriations bill For FY2011 the total appropriated for DOD—including the Tricare for Life accrual payment and military construction funds was $688 6 billion 2 Funds appropriated in prior years that are rescinded are used to partly offset the cost of newly appropriated programs Thus they reduce the amount of the new budget authority required by the bill Congressional Research Service 1 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations   $473 million from the $934 million requested for a new ground combat vehicle for the Army and $325 million cut from the $864 billion requested to develop a new mid-air refueling tanker for the Air Force The hundreds of cuts to the President’s DOD budget made by H R 1473 were partly offset by some 226 instances in which the bill added funds to the request 3 Among the amounts the bill added to the budget request are       $495 0 million for nine F A-18E F Navy strike fighters $1 38 billion for equipment for the National Guard and reserve components $661 7 million for various medical research programs $523 2 million to foster innovative research $293 2 million for Israeli missile defense systems and $165 0 million to increase funding for the Military Career Advancement Account MyCAA program which provides tuition assistance to the spouses of service members The bill did not add funds to continue development of an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act The version of the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act passed May 28 by the House H R 5136 H Rept 111-491 would have authorized $725 9 billion for DOD and other defenserelated activities which was $2 7 million less than the Administration requested The version of the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 4 2010 S 3454 S Rept 111-201 would have authorized $725 7 billion a reduction of $240 7 million from the Administration’s request The Senate did not act on this version of bill partly because of opposition to a provision that would have repealed a 1993 law 10 U S C 654 that in effect had barred from military service those who are openly homosexual establishing a policy colloquially referred to as “don’t ask don’t tell ” S 3454 was set aside after the Senate on December 9 2010 rejected a motion to invoke cloture on motion to begin consideration of the bill The vote was 57-40 in favor of invoking cloture which would have required 60 “yea” votes Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees negotiated a compromise version of the authorization bill H R 6523 which dropped the provision relating to the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy and which was cleared for the President on December 22 2010 The President signed the bill on January 7 2011 P L 111-383 3 This is about one-eighth the number of additions Congress has made to DOD budget requests for the past few years According to a database of congressional earmarks in appropriations bills which is maintained by the Office of Management and Budget there were 2 085 earmarks in the defense appropriations bill for FY2008 2 084 in the bill for FY2009 and 1 758 in the FY2010 bill See OMB “FY2010 Earmarks by Appropriations Subcommittee” accessed at http earmarks omb gov earmarks-public 2010-appropriations-by-spendcom summary html Congressional Research Service 2 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Table 1 Summary DOD Funding in the FY2011 National Defense Authorization H R 5136 S 3454 H R 6523 amounts in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority Administration request for Authorization House-passed H R 5136 5 28 1 Senate committeereported S 3454 6 4 10 Base Budget 548 871 548 869 550 314 548 055 War Costs “Overseas Contingency Operations” 159 336 159 335 157 648 158 750 Total 708 207 708 204 707 962 706 805 H R 6523 Enacted P L 111-383 1 7 2011 Sources House Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany H R 5136 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 H Rept 111-491 Senate Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany S 3454 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 S Rept 111-201 House Armed Services Committee Print HASC No 6 Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H R 6523 P L 111-383 Notes These amounts include funding for military construction and DOD family housing but exclude funds authorized by the bill for defense-related nuclear energy programs conducted by the Department of Energy and certain other defense-related federal activities outside of DOD that the federal budget includes in budget function 050 “national defense” A summary table including all authorizations in the bill is printed as Selected Program Summary Tables Table A-1 Totals may not add due to rounding Both the versions of the authorization passed by the House and Senate generally supported the Administration’s budget request In particular both versions—and the enacted H R 6523— supported President Obama’s position by not adding to the budget funds to continue production of the C-17 long-range cargo plane On two other high profile issues the original House-passed bill challenged Administration positions that were backed by the original Senate bill   authorizing a 1 9% increase in basic pay for military personnel instead of the 1 4% increase requested by the President which was authorized by the Senate bill and authorizing $485 million not requested in the budget to continue development of an alternate jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter a project the Bush and Obama Administrations both have tried to terminate The enacted version of the FY2011 bill H R 6523 authorized the 1 4% basic pay raise as requested and $485 million for the alternate engine for the F-35 Congressional Research Service 3 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Status of Legislation Table 2 National Defense Authorization Act FY2011 H R 5136 S 3454 H R 6523 House Report H Rept 111-491 5 21 10 House Passage H R 5136 229-186 5 28 10 H R 6523 Senate Report S Rept 111-201 6 4 10 Senate Passage S 3454 -- Conf Report House Passage Senate Passage Public Law -- 341-48 12 17 10 u c 12 22 10 P L 111383 1 7 11 Note In lieu of a conference report on the enacted version of the bill H R 6523 see House Armed Services Committee Print HASC No 5 Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany H R 6523 December 2010 Table 3 FY2011 DOD Appropriations Bill S 3800 H R 1473 FY2011 Continuing Resolution H R 1473 Passage Subcommittee Markup House draft bill Senate S 3800 House Report House Passage 9 27 10 9 14 10 -- -- Senate Report S 3800 S Rept 111-295 9 16 10 Senate Passage Conf Report -- -- House Senate Public Law 260-167 4 14 11 81-19 4 14 11 P L 112-10 4 15 11 Note Division A of the FY2011 continuing resolution H R 1473 is a complete DOD appropriations bill Since the final version of the bill was negotiated without a formal conference there is no conference report Nor is there a Joint Explanatory Statement discussing the legislative intent behind provisions of the bill The text of the agreed on bill as well as detailed funding tables are printed in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011 Congressional Record daily edition vol 157 number 55 April 14 2011 pp H2697-H2788 Congressional Research Service 4 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations FY2011 National Defense Budget Overview Budget Function 050 The President’s FY2011 budget request released February 1 2010 included $738 7 billion in new budget authority for the so-called “national defense” function of the federal government function 050 which includes the military activities of the Department of Defense DOD and defense-related activities of other agencies the largest component of which is Energy Department work related to nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants for warships 4 Of that total $733 3 billion is discretionary spending most of which requires an annual appropriation 5 The FY2011 budget for the 050 function also includes a net sum of $5 3 billion in mandatory spending the largest share of which is for military retirees who are authorized to receive “concurrent receipt” of their full military pension and a disability pension from the Department of Veterans Affairs Table 4 6 Table 4 FY2011 National Defense Budget Request Function 050 amounts are in billions of dollars Discretionary Mandatory Total Department of Defense Base Budget 548 9 3 9 552 8 Department of Defense war costs 159 3 0 159 3 Other “national defense” activities 25 2 1 4 26 6 Total 733 4 5 3 738 7 Source Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011 “The Green Book” March 2010 Table1-9 “National Defense Budget Authority-Function 050 ” pp 14-15 In addition to $548 9 billion requested for the regular non-war operations of the Department of Defense DOD in FY2011 the budget request included $159 3 billion for ongoing military operations primarily funding the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq bringing the total DOD request for FY2011 to $708 3 billion The Administration also requested $33 billion in supplemental DOD appropriations for FY2010 war costs in order to cover the cost of the President’s decision announced on November 30 2009 to deploy an additional 30 000 troops to Afghanistan This “surge” would bring to 98 000 the total number of U S troops in that country in FY2011 Added to the funds previously appropriated for war costs in the FY2010 DOD appropriations bill enacted December 19 2009 H R 3326 P L 111-118 the requested supplemental funds would bring the total amount appropriated for FY2010 war costs to $162 6 billion Table 5 Civil works activities of the Army Corps of Engineers are not included in the “national defense” budget function Accrual payments to support medical care for military retirees under the so-called Tricare-for-Life program are counted as discretionary spending but are funded under a permanent appropriation 6 Mandatory spending for concurrent receipt and other activities is partially offset by various receipts and income from trust funds 4 5 Congressional Research Service 5 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Table 5 FY2009-FY2011 DOD Discretionary Appropriations Including Military Construction and DOD Family Housing amounts in billions of dollars Base Budget “Economic Stimulus” package War Costs Overseas Contingency Operations Haiti Relief Operations Total FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Enacted FY2010 Supplemental Request FY2011 Requested 513 1 530 7 n a 548 9 7 4 n a n a n a 145 8 129 6 33 0 159 3 n a n a 7 n a 666 3 660 3 33 7 708 3 Sources CRS calculations based on National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011 “The Green Book” Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller March 2010 Table1-9 “National Defense Budget AuthorityFunction 050 ” pp 14-15 and CRS Report R40531 FY2009 Spring Supplemental Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations coordinated by Stephen Daggett and Susan B Epstein Table F-1 pp 62-72 Totals may not add due to rounding Note Base budget amounts Include accrual payments to support medical care for military retirees under the socalled Tricare-for-Life program which is discretionary spending but is funded pursuant to a permanent appropriation FY2011 War Costs and FY2010 Supplemental The Administration’s $159 3 billion request for war costs in FY2011 was roughly $3 billion lower than the FY2010 war budget including the pending supplemental request that would increase the FY2010 amount by $33 billion For the third year in a row the budget request reflected a shift in emphasis from operations in Iraq to those in Afghanistan Table 6 Congressional Research Service 6 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Table 6 DOD War Funding FY2001-FY2011 Request in billions of dollars and shares of total Total FY2001FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Enacted in 2009 FY2010 Supplemental Request FY2010 Total with Supplemental as Enacted 7 27 10 FY2011 Request IRAQ Funding $553 5 $92 0 $59 6 $1 0 $60 6 $45 8 Share of Total 78% 62% 46% 3% 38% 29% Funding $159 2 $56 1 $69 1 $30 0 $98 9 $113 5 Share of Total 22% 38% 54% 97% 62% 71% Funding $712 7 $148 2 $128 7 $31 0 $159 5 $159 3 Share of Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% AFGHANISTAN TOTAL Source CRS Report R41232 FY2010 Supplemental for Wars Disaster Assistance Haiti Relief and Other Programs coordinated by Amy Belasco based on Table 8-5 in DOD FY2011 Budget Request Overview Febraury 1 2010 http comptroller defense gov defbudget fy2011 FY2011_Budget_Request_Overview_Book pdf Notes CRS calculations exclude non-war funding in supplementals and include funds from DOD’s regular budget used for war needs War Funding For an analysis of some issues raised by the Administration’s funding request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for congressional action on the FY2010 supplemental appropriations request for war costs see CRS Report R41232 FY2010 Supplemental for Wars Disaster Assistance Haiti Relief and Other Programs coordinated by Amy Belasco For further information on war costs see CRS Report RL33110 The Cost of Iraq Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9 11 by Amy Belasco Haiti Operations Supplemental On March 24 2010 the Administration amended its FY2010 DOD supplemental funding request to include an additional $655 million to pay for humanitarian relief operations in Haiti which was struck on January 12 2010 by a devastating earthquake The DOD relief effort included the deployment of 18 Navy ships 830 cargo flights and nearly 21 000 military personnel Real Growth and “Security Agencies” DOD is one of the federal agencies the Administration has defined as “security agencies” that are exempt from the budget freeze on discretionary spending by non-security agencies Compared with the amount appropriated for the DOD base budget in FY2010 the requested FY2011 base budget would be an increase of 3 4% amounting to a 1 8% “real growth” in purchasing power that is taking account of the cost of inflation The budget request also would provide real growth in spending for other “security agencies”—a category that it defined as including the Department of State and “other international programs ” Congressional Research Service 7 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security and the National Nuclear Security Administration NNSA of the Department of Energy 7 In sum the Administration requested $719 2 billion for discretionary programs of the security agencies excluding war costs which is 5 2% more than was appropriated for those programs in FY2010 For non-security agencies—that is all other discretionary programs—the Administration requested $386 4 billion a 1 5% decrease from their FY2010 appropriations Table 7 Table 7 Security Agency and Non-security Agency Discretionary Budget Authority Enacted and Requested FY2009-FY2011 amounts are in billions of dollars FY2009 enacted Regular Appropriations American Recovery and Reinvestment Act “Stimulus Package” FY2010 enacted FY2011 requested 530 8 548 9 9 9 11 2 Security Agencies DOD excluding war costs National Nuclear Security Administration Department of Energy 513 2 9 1 7 4 -- Department of Homeland Security 42 1 2 8 39 4 43 6 Department of Veterans Affairs 47 6 1 4 53 1 57 0 State and other International Programs 38 1 0 4 50 6 58 5 Subtotal Security Agencies 650 1 12 0 683 7 719 2 Subtotal Nonsecurity Agencies 354 1 253 1 392 1 386 4 Source Office of Management and Budget The Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 Table S-7 “Funding Levels for Appropriated “Discretionary” Programs by Agency ” pp 130-31 Note Nonsecurity Agencies are all federal agencies not listed as “Security Agencies ” FY2011 DOD Base Budget The $548 9 billion requested for the FY2011 DOD base budget is $18 2 billion higher than the $531 0 billion appropriated for DOD non-war costs in FY2010 By DOD’s estimate this 3 4% increase would provide a 1 8% increase in real purchasing power after taking into account the For the Energy Department’s Nuclear National Security Agency NNSA which was designated as a “security agency” and thus exempt from its budget freeze the Administration requested $11 2 billion in FY2011 13 5% more than was appropriated for the agency in FY2010 However the Administration also requested $6 5 billion for other defense-related Energy Department activities which OMB designates as part of the “National Security” function of the budget Function 050 and which are covered by the annual National Defense Authorization Act but which the Administration did not designate as “security agencies” that were exempt from the budget freeze Office of Management and Budget Historical Tables Budget of the U S Government Fiscal Year 2011 Table 5 1 “Budget Authority by Function and Subfunction 1976-2015 ” p 94 and Department of Energy “Summary Table Budget by Appropriation ” accessed at http www mbe doe gov budget 11budget Content Apprsum pdf 7 Congressional Research Service 8 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations cost of inflation The request would continue the relatively steady upward trend in DOD base budgets since FY1998 which was the low-water mark of the post-Cold War retrenchment in defense funding Figure 1 Figure 1 Total DOD Appropriations FY2001-FY2011 dollars in billions Source DOD Briefing on the FY2011 Budget Request February 2010 accessed at http comptroller defense gov defbudget fy2011 fy2011_BudgetBriefing pdf Adjusted for inflation using DOD deflators the requested FY2011 base budget would be DOD’s third largest since the end of the Korean War after the amounts appropriated for FY1985 and FY1986 at the peak of the Reagan Administration’s defense buildup Figure 2 Congressional Research Service 9 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Figure 2 DOD Budget Excluding Post-9 11 War Costs FY1948-FY2014 amounts in millions of dollars Source Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011 “The Green Book” Table 6-8 “Department of Defense BA by Title ” pp 109-114 Data for FY2001-FY2011 from CRS analysis based on distinction between base budget and war costs for those years in DOD Briefing on the FY2011 Budget Request February 2010 see Figure 1 above Notes Data for FY2010 and FY2011 based on Administration’s February 2010 budget request Data for the FY1976 transition quarter are omitted Projected Growth Rate and Proposed Efficiencies For the four years following FY2011 FY2012-FY2015 the Administration projects annual increases in the DOD base budget that would exceed inflation on average by 0 8% This falls short of the 2% real growth rate that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in congressional testimony on May 14 2009 would be needed to pay for the investments the Department planned to make through FY2015 Table 8 8 8Transcript Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY2010 DOD budget request May 14 2009 Accessed at http www cq com display do dockey cqonline prod data docs html transcripts congressional 111 congressionaltrans cripts111-000003117540 html@committees metapub CQ-CONGTRANSCRIPTS searchIndex 1 seqNum 1 Congressional Research Service 10 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Table 8 Projected and Alternative DOD Base Budgets FY2011-FY2015 total budget authority including mandatory in billions of dollars FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2011FY2015 total Administration Plan current dollars 552 8 570 1 585 7 601 8 620 2 2 930 6 Administration Plan constant FY2011 dollars 552 8 558 8 562 7 566 3 571 5 2 812 1 percent real growth 1 8% 1 1% 0 7% 0 6% 0 9% n a Amount that would provide 2% real growth compounded current dollars 553 9 576 4 600 0 624 6 650 7 3 005 6 Amount by which 2% real growth budget would exceed Administration Plan current dollars 1 1 6 3 14 3 22 8 30 5 75 0 Source Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011 “The Green Book” Table 6-8 “Department of Defense BA by Title ” p 114 Data concerning 2% real growth rate are CRS calculations based on data in Table 6-8 Figures may not add due to rounding In a May 8 2010 speech Secretary Gates proposed bridging that gap between the cost of sustaining the current force and the budgets he expected in the future by reducing DOD’s overhead costs by $10 billion annually in order to sustain its current forces with the budgets he expected in the future given the country’s current difficult economic circumstances Sustaining the current force Secretary Gates said would require “real growth in the defense budget ranging from two to 3% above inflation But realistically it is highly unlikely that we will achieve the real growth rates necessary to sustain the current force structure ”9 The solution Secretary Gates proposed was to shift funds within the budget providing the necessary real growth in those accounts that directly support combat forces but offsetting the additional cost by an equivalent reduction in spending for administrative and support activities such as personnel management acquisition oversight and DOD’s medical program Phrased in terms of military jargon Secretary Gates proposed increasing the amount spent on DOD’s fighting force—the “tooth”-- by decreasing the amount spent on administrative and support functions—the “tail ” The goal is to cut our overhead costs and to transfer those savings to force structure and modernization within the programmed budget In other words to convert sufficient “tail” to “tooth” to provide the equivalent of roughly two to three percent real growth Simply taking a few percent off the top of everything on a one-time basis will not do These savings must stem from root-and-branch changes that can be sustained and added to over time 10 Citing an estimate by the Defense Business Board11 that DOD’s tail absorbs roughly 40% of the department’s annual budget 12 Gates told reporters that a shift of about $10 billion from those 9 Secretary Gates delivered this address at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene Kansas Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs “Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M Gates Abilene KAS May 8 2010” accessed at http www defense gov Speeches Speech aspx SpeechID 1467 10 Ibid 11 The Defense Business Board is a federal advisory committee that provides management advice to the Secretary of Defense 12 Defense Business Board Report to the Secretary of Defense Task Group Report on Tooth-to-Tail Analysis April Congressional Research Service 11 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations support functions to the part of the budget that directly supports combat units would provide a total real increase of about 3% in the “tooth”-related part of the FY2012 DOD budget request 13 On August 9 2010 Secretary Gates announced several initiatives he said would reduce the cost of DOD’s headquarters and support bureaucracies Among these were    a 10% reduction in funding for service support contractors in each of the next three years a reduction in the number of generals and admirals by 50 and a reduction in the number of senior DOD civilians by 150 over the next two years and elimination of the Joint Forces Command the Business Transformation Agency and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration 14 On September 14 2010 Secretary Gates announced 23 additional initiatives all of which were intended to increase the efficiency with which DOD contracts for goods and services—activities which he said account for about $400 billion of the roughly $700 billion the department spends annually Among these contracting and acquisition initiatives were    a requirement that weapons program managers treat an “affordability target” as a key requirement of each new system on a par with the usual performance requirements such as speed or data transmission rate various contracting revisions intended to reward contractors for managing their programs more efficiently and several changes in contracting rules intended to reduce the cost of contracts for services which account for more than half DOD’s annual contracting budget 15 Some Members of Congress contend that the Administration’s projected real budget increases even if realized would be inadequate given the steadily rising cost of personnel and operations For example Representative Howard P “Buck” McKeon then the ranking minority Member of the House Armed Services Committee commented in a February 4 2010 Heritage Foundation lecture that the planned budgets would force DOD to scale back some planned acquisition programs One percent real growth in the defense budget over the next five years is a net cut for investment and procurement accounts 16 On the other hand some Members object to exempting DOD and other “security agencies” from the Administration-imposed budget freeze on discretionary spending Figure 3 For example Representative Barney Frank has called for reductions in the DOD budget based on the 2008 accessed at http dbb defense gov pdf Tooth_to_Tail_Final_Report pdf 13 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs “Media Availability with Secretary Gates en route to Kansas City MO May 7 2010 accessed at http www defense gov transcripts transcript aspx transcriptid 4621 14 Secretary of Defense Robert M Gates “Statement on Department Efficiencies Initiative ” August 9 2010 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs accessed at http www defense gov Speeches Speech aspx SpeechID 1496 15 See Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs News Transcript “DOD News Briefing with Under Secretary Carter with Opening Remarks by Secretary Gates from the Pentagon ” September 14 2010 accessed at http www defense gov transcripts transcript aspx transcriptid 4684 on September 16 2010 16 Hon Howard P “Buck” McKeon “Building a Robust National Defense ” accessed at http www heritage org Research Lecture Building-a-Robust-National-Defense Congressional Research Service 12 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations termination of unnecessary weapons programs and a retrenchment from some of overseas military deployments President Obama’s announcement that he is going to begin deficit reduction while exempting the ever-increasing military budget from the same scrutiny that goes to other federal expenditures means either that deficit reduction in both the near and long term is doomed to failure or that devastating cuts will occur in virtually every federal program that aims at improving the quality of our lives 17 Figure 3 Proposed Spending Categories Relevant to a Budget ‘Freeze’ amounts in billions of current dollars Source Office of Management and Budget The Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 Data for Security Agencies excluding war costs and Non-Security Agencies drawn from Table S-11 “Funding Levels for Appropriated “Discretionary” Programs by Agency ” p 174 Data for Mandatory Spending and Net Interest drawn from Table S-4 “Proposed Budget by Category ” p 151 Notes Besides DOD the Obama Administration defines as “security agencies” the following the Department of Homeland Security the Department of Veterans Affairs the Department of State “and other international programs ” and the National Nuclear Security Administration within the Department of Energy Ibid Table S-11 “Funding Levels for Appropriated “Discretionary” Programs by Agency ” p 174 Defense Budget as Share of Gross Domestic Product GDP The FY2011 DOD base budget request amounts to 3 6% of the GDP by the Administration’s calculations—the same percentage as the FY2010 base budget Table 9 17 Rep Barney Frank You Can't Succeed at Deficit Reduction Without Really Trying Congressional Record daily edition February 4 2010 p E157 http www house gov frank speeches 2010 02-02-10-deficit-reduction-militaryspeech pdf Congressional Research Service 13 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Table 9 Defense Outlays as Share of GDP FY2008-FY2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 DOD Base Budget without war costs 3 3% 3 5% 3 6% 3 6% DOD Total Budget 4 1% 4 5% 4 7% 4 7% Source Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011 “The Green Book” Table 7-7 “Defense Shares of Economic and Budgetary Aggregates ” pp 223-24 and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request briefing slides accessed at http comptroller defense gov defbudget fy2011 fy2011_BudgetBriefing pdf Viewed over the long haul the FY2011 request would mark the leveling off of a relatively steady upward trend in the DOD share of GDP since the attacks of September 11 2001 Figure 4 Figure 4 DOD Appropriations as Share of GDP FY1976-2015 Source CRS calculations based on Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011 “The Green Book” Table 7-7 “Defense Shares of Economic and Budgetary Aggregates ” pp 223-24 Notes Discussions of the DOD share of the GDP typically use data based on DOD outlays for each fiscal year as in Table 5 above This chart is based on annual levels of DOD budget authority because available outlay data do not separate war costs from base budget expenditures Year to year changes in outlays lag corresponding movements in budget authority but over a long period trends in the ratio of DOD budget authority to GDP should closely track trends in the ratio of DOD outlays to GDP Long-term Planning Strategies and Budgets The Administration did not propose in its FY2011 DOD budget request as many significant changes to major weapons programs as had been incorporated into its FY2010 request Nevertheless the FY2011 budget sustains the initiatives launched in the previous budget Moreover the budget request reflects the strategy and force planning assumptions that are embodied in DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review QDR a legislatively mandated assessment of Congressional Research Service 14 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations defense strategy and priorities the most recent of which was released on February 1 2010 to accompany the FY2011 budget request 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review For a more comprehensive review of the 2010 QDR see CRS Report R41250 Quadrennial Defense Review 2010 Overview and Implications for National Security Planning by Stephen Daggett The four QDRs produced in 1997 2001 2005 and 2010 document an ongoing evolution of DOD strategic thinking that has seen a shift away from emphasizing the readiness of U S forces to wage smaller versions of Cold War-era conventional wars such as the 1991 Persian Gulf War Increasingly U S planners have focused on the need for U S forces to be ready for a diverse array of missions 18 Two key assumptions running through the 2010 QDR are particularly relevant to the Administration’s budgetary priorities The first of these key assumptions is that DOD’s top priority is fighting and winning the ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan Accordingly the report says the department must rebalance its priorities to put more emphasis on support for forces engaged in current operations and institutionalize capabilities for counterinsurgency stability and counter-terrorism operations such as those currently being conducted by U S forces in Iraq and Afghanistan Among the near-term initiatives recommended by the QDR toward this end are increased funding to acquire helicopters UAVs improved intelligence and analysis capabilities counter IED technologies and AC-130 gunship aircraft 19 The report also recommends some longer-term initiatives including the conversion of one heavy Army brigade combat team BCT into a Stryker brigade—such brigades use wheeled Stryker armored vehicles for mobility The report says that “several more BCTs” may be converted “as resources become available and future global demands become clearer ”20 A second basic assumption asserted throughout the 2010 QDR is that no adversary in prospect over the next 10-20 years is likely to directly confront U S conventional military capabilities as embodied in armored brigades aircraft carrier task forces and squadrons of advanced jet fighters Instead the argument goes any foe—whether a violent radical non-state terrorist group or a technologically advanced near-peer competitor—will try to challenge U S forces “asymmetrically ” that is by using unconventional tactics and technologies to exploit U S limitations The report challenges the widely held notion that there is a spectrum of conflict ranging from unsophisticated insurgents or terrorists at the low end to sophisticated national armies at the high end Instead the QDR says “low-end” terrorist groups may use advanced technologies such as precision-guided missiles and near-peer competitors may use guerrilla-like “indirect means” of attack such as a cyber-war campaign to degrade the computer networks on which U S forces rely heavily The 2010 QDR emphasizes the importance of the military’s ability to operate effectively in cyberspace which it characterizes as one more domain of operations along with air sea and space The report also asserts that DOD must strengthen its capabilities to actively defend its cyber-networks Towards this end the report calls for several specific steps including 18 Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2010 at http www defense gov qdr images QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000 pdf 19 “UAVs” refers to unmanned or unpiloted aerial vehicles particularly used for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance ISR missions IEDs are improvised explosive devices including roadside car and truck bombs 20 Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2010 p 24 at http www defense gov qdr images QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000 pdf Congressional Research Service 15 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations developing a more comprehensive approach to DOD operations in cyberspace developing a greater cyber expertise and awareness within DOD centralizing command of cyber operations and collaborating more closely with other agencies and levels of government to enhance cyber security The 2010 QDR does not abandon the long-standing policy that U S forces should be able to win two major regional wars that occur nearly simultaneously in widely separated theaters of action However the report assigns equal importance to ensuring that U S forces can respond flexibly and effectively when required to conduct concurrently at various points around the globe several missions of different types For example one scenario the QDR said U S forces should be able to handle combined a major operation to stabilize another country sustaining deterrence of a potential aggressor in another region conducting a medium-sized counter-insurgency mission in yet another country and providing support to U S civil authorities in the wake of some major disaster or terrorist attack The 2010 QDR emphasizes the importance of preparing U S forces to deal with one particular type of asymmetric threat that has potentially significant implications for conventional U S forces a so-called “anti-access area-denial” capability that China and other potential adversaries appear to be developing The argument is that China or Iran could use a variety of both simple and sophisticated technologies to target U S forward bases in nearby nations and naval forces operating relatively close to shore which are the basis of the U S ability to project power in regions far from the U S homeland Such power projection capabilities are the bedrock of U S alliances in Europe and Asia and the key to U S efforts to bolster stability in other important regions as well Such capabilities are also expensive The cost of power projection capabilities is one reason why U S defense spending dramatically exceeds that of any other nation Those sinews of U S power projections may be increasingly vulnerable to attack Overseas ground bases may be increasingly vulnerable to ballistic missile cruise missile and bomber attacks Naval forces particularly aircraft carriers and other service combatants may be increasingly vulnerable to anti-ship cruise missiles modern quiet diesel electric submarines smart mines that can be activated on command and maneuvered into place small fast boats laden with explosives or at the high end of the technological spectrum ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads that can be redirected in flight to strike moving ships The QDR makes a number of recommendations for countering anti-access strategies including increased reliance on long-range strike weapons and submarines that would be less vulnerable to such methods For instance long-range strike forces might include a new manned or unmanned bomber perhaps armed with long-range cruise missiles for stand-off attacks Measures to defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems include development of offensive “electronic attack” capabilities which remain highly classified Missile defense may be a major and expensive part of measures to protect forward deployed forces FY2011 Base Budget Highlights and Potential Issues The FY2011 base budget request reflected some major initiatives of long standing and others— particularly in acquisition—that were launched by the Obama Administration in its FY2010 budget Table 10 Following are some highlights Congressional Research Service 16 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Table 10 DOD Base Budget Discretionary Funding Request by Title FY2010-FY2011 current dollar amounts in billions FY2010 FY2011 Change FY210-FY211 Military Personnel $135 0 $138 5 2 6% Operations and Maintenance 184 5 200 2 8 5% Procurement 104 8 112 9 7 7% Research and Development 80 1 76 1 -5 0% Military Construction and Family Housing 23 3 18 7 -19 6% Revolving and Management Funds 3 1 2 4 -23 7% $530 7 $548 9 3 4% Total Source DOD Briefing on the FY2011 Budget Request February 2010 accessed at http comptroller defense gov defbudget fy2011 fy2011_BudgetBriefing pdf Military Personnel21 The FY2011 budget request would fund 1 43 million active duty personnel in the regular components 22 This amounts to a 4 7% increase over the end-strength of 1 38 million in FY2000 which was the low point in a reduction in active-duty manpower that began in FY1987 and accelerated during the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union Additional Detail on Selected FY2011 Military Personnel Issues For a more comprehensive review of military personnel issues in the FY2011 budget see CRS Report R41316 FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues coordinated by Charles A Henning From an active-duty end-strength of 2 18 million in FY1987 the high-water mark of the Reagan defense buildup active duty end-strength was reduced by about one-third across each of the services during the drawdown of the early 1990s Since the start of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps rebounded to 562 400 and 202 100 respectively Both goals have been met three years earlier than had been planned Figure 5 In 2010 Congress authorized an additional temporary increase in the Army’s active duty strength which is reflected in the FY2011 request for an Army end-strength of 569 400 21 Prepared in collaboration with Charles A Henning Specialist in Military Manpower Policy This total includes 26 000 personnel who comprise what DOD regards as a temporary expansion to fill billets associated with ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan It does not include 79 000 members of the reserve components including the National Guard who are serving full-time nor does it include the much larger number of reserve component personnel who have been temporarily called to active duty in connection with ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 22 Congressional Research Service 17 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Figure 5 Authorized Active Duty End Strength FY1987-FY2011 end-strength levels in thousands 2500 end-strength in thousands 2000 1500 1000 500 0 FY87 FY90 FY93 FY96 FY99 FY02 FY05 FY08 FY11 Air Force 607 567 450 388 371 359 360 330 332 Marine Corps 200 197 182 174 172 173 178 189 202 Navy 587 592 536 428 373 376 366 329 328 Army 781 764 599 495 480 480 502 525 569 Source Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Comptroller National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2011 “The Green Book” Table 7-5 “Department of Defense Manpower ” pp 217-18 Notes Data do not include temporary end strength authority of 30 000 for the Army and 9 000 for the Marine Corps in effect during the period FY2005-FY2009 nor additional temporary end strength authority of 22 000 for the Army and 13 000 for the Marine Corps in effect during FY2009-FY2010 Data for FY2011 are the Administration’s request Military Pay Raise The budget included nearly $1 billion to give military personnel a 1 4 % raise in basic pay effective January 1 2011 This increase would equal the average increase in private-sector pay and benefits as measured by the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index ECI as required by law 23 In addition the Basic Allowance for Housing a non-taxable cash payment to service members who do not live in government-provided housing which can add about 20% to a service member’s basic pay was scheduled to increase by 4 2% in FY2011 In each year but one since FY2004 Congress has approved raises in military basic pay that were 0 5% higher than the ECI increase on the grounds that military pay increases had lagged behind civilian pay hikes during the 1980s 24 DOD officials contend that service members currently are better paid than 70% of private sector workers with comparable experience and responsibility and that the $340 million it would cost to 23 24 Title 37 United States Code Section 1009 Congress did not increase the proposed pay raise in FY2007 Congressional Research Service 18 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations provide the higher 1 9% raise across-the-board would provide more benefit to the department if it were spent instead on reenlistment bonuses and special pays for military personnel in critical specialties Military advocacy groups insist however that service members need the higher increase to close a “pay gap” between military personnel and their civilian peers 25 Don’t Ask Don’t Tell The FY2011 DOD funding bills provided a vehicle for legislative initiatives by supporters and opponents of President Obama’s decision to revise a 1993 law26 and DOD regulations that in effect bar from military service those who are openly homosexual Under a compromise policy reached in 1993 colloquially referred to as Analysis of Issues Related to the ‘Don’t “don’t ask don’t tell ” service members are Ask Don’t Tell’ Policy not to be asked about nor allowed to discuss For more comprehensive analyses of issues related to their same-sex orientation legislation and DOD policy concerning service of openly homosexual persons in the armed forces see Some Members of Congress contend that the CRS Reports CRS Report R40782 “Don’t Ask Don’t presence in combat units of openly Tell” Military Policy and the Law on Same-Sex Behavior by homosexual personnel would undermine the David F Burrelli and CRS Report R40795 “Don’t Ask units’ cohesion and combat effectiveness Don’t Tell” A Legal Analysis by Jody Feder Some critics oppose changing the current policy while the tempo of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan is imposing stress on the services Other legislators have called for immediate repeal of the 1993 law or at least a moratorium in the discharge of service members for violating the don’t ask don’t tell policy Two bills introduced in the 111th Congress would have repealed the law and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation—H R 1283 and S 3065 27 In his January 27 2010 State of the Union Address President Obama called for repealing the 1993 legislation and adopting a policy of nondiscrimination against persons with a same-sex orientation DOD launched a study slated for completion by December 1 2010 on how such a change in law and policy would be implemented Secretary Gates has opposed repeal of the 1993 law pending completion of that study On March 25 2010 he announced changes in the department’s procedures for enforcement of the current law providing that only a general or flag officer would have the authority to initiate an investigation and separate someone who had engaged in homosexual conduct and that third party information alleging homosexual conduct by a service member must be given under oath In a May 24 2010 letter to President Obama Senators Carl Levin and Joseph I Lieberman and Representative Patrick J Murphy proposed an amendment to the FY2011 Defense Authorization Act that would repeal the 1993 legislation barring openly homosexual persons from military service after 1 the current DOD review has been completed and 2 the President the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have certified to Congress that policies and regulations have been prepared that would allow the repeal of the ban to be implemented in a 25 See CRS Report R41316 FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues coordinated by Charles A Henning 26 Title 10 United States Code Section 654 27 CRS Report R40782 “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Military Policy and the Law on Same-Sex Behavior by David F Burrelli and CRS Report R40795 “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” A Legal Analysis by Jody Feder Congressional Research Service 19 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations way that is “consistent with the standards of military readiness military effectiveness unit cohesion and recruiting and retention of the armed forces ”28 In a letter responding to the three Members then Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R Orzag said that while the Administration would have preferred that congressional action on the issue await completion of the current DOD study the Administration “understands that Congress has chosen to move forward with legislation now ” and that the Administration supports the draft amendment 29 In a statement to reporters on May 25 2010 DOD press spokesman Geoff Morrell reportedly said Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the Defense Department review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the ‘don’t ask don’t tell ’ law With Congress having indicated that is not possible the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment 30 On September 9 2010 Federal Judge Virginia A Phillips ruled that the 1993 law was unconstitutional One month later on October 12 2010 Judge Phillips enjoined DOD “from enforcing or applying the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Act ” On October 19 2010 the Ninth Circuit temporarily stayed Judge Phillips’ injunction while the court considers the stay for the rest of the appeals process Two days later on October 21 2010 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel Clifford Stanley issued a memorandum stating that only five senior DOD officials would have the authority to discharge service members for homosexual behavior as defined in the law Military Health Care Costs31 The FY2011 budget request included $50 7 billion for the DOD health care system that employs 85 000 military personnel and 53 000 civilian DOD employees The system serves 9 5 million eligible beneficiaries through 56 hospitals 363 out-patient medical facilities and 275 dental clinics The system’s cost which was $19 billion in FY2001 has more than doubled in the 10 years since then The cost of the medical program is projected by DOD to increase annually at a rate of 5-7% through FY2015 when it is projected to account for 10% of the planned DOD budget In addition to the cost of general inflation and new developments in medical technology DOD officials attribute the steady increase in military health care costs to several factors including   an increase in the number of retirees using DOD’s TRICARE medical insurance rather than other less generous insurance plans for which they are eligible an increase in the frequency with which eligible beneficiaries use DOD medical services 28 Draft legislative amendment accessed on the White House Press Office website at http www whitehouse gov sites default files Lieberman_NDAA_DADT_Amendment pdf 29 Peter R Orzag letter to Senator Joseph I Lieberman accessed on the White House Press Office website at http www whitehouse gov sites default files Sen_Lieberman pdf 30 Donna Miles “Gates Can Accept ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Amendment ” Armed Forces Press Service May 25 2010 accessed at http www defense gov news newsarticle aspx id 59321 31 Prepared in collaboration with Don J Jansen Analyst in Military Health Care Policy Congressional Research Service 20 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations   legislatively mandated increases in benefits such as expanded access to TRICARE for reservists and no increase in fees and copayments for TRICARE beneficiaries since 1995 when the program was created The Bush Administration’s DOD budget requests for FY2007 FY2008 and FY2009 proposed to increase enrollment fees and copayment requirements for those TRICARE beneficiaries who were not eligible for Medicare Each year fee increases were proposed Congress passed legislation to prohibit them 32 Although the Obama Administration’s 2011 budget did not include any legislative proposals to increase TRICARE annual fees or copayments Secretary Gates stated in a February 1 2010 press conference “We certainly would like to work with the Congress in figuring out a way to try and bring some modest control to this program We absolutely want to take care of our men and women in uniform and our retirees but at some point there has to be some reasonable tradeoff between reasonable cost increases or premium increases or co-pays or something and the cost of the program ”33 Procurement and R D The FY2011 request would have increased the total amount provided for development and procurement of weapons and equipment from $184 9 billion in FY2010 to $189 0 billion in FY2011 The proportion of the total DOD budget dedicated to procurement would have slightly increased from 56% to 60% while the proportion going to R D would decline from 44% to 40% In part that shift reflected the transition into production of some major programs that have had relatively large R D budgets in recent years the largest of which is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter For that program a total of $11 2 billion was appropriated in FY2010 $4 0 billion for R D and $7 2 billion for procurement For FY2011 the total budget request was only slightly higher— $11 2 billion—however that total includes $2 3 billion for R D and $9 0 billion for procurement 34 The Administration proposed few new cuts in major weapons programs beyond those it proposed in its FY2010 DOD budget 35 But it reiterated two of the proposed cuts that Congress rejected in 2009 The FY2011 budget request included no funds either for production of additional C-17 wide-body cargo jets or for development of an alternate jet engine for the F-35 In 2009 when the Obama Administration also requested no funding for either of those programs Congress added $2 5 billion to the FY2010 DOD funding bills for 10 C-17s and $465 million to continue work on the alternate engine 32 CRS Report RS22402 Increases in Tricare Costs Background and Options for Congress by Don J Jansen and CRS Report R40711 FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues coordinated by Don J Jansen 33Department of Defense “DoD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm Mullen from the Pentagon ” press release February 1 2010 http www defense gov transcripts transcript aspx transcriptid 4549 34 Figures do not add due to rounding 35 Opposition to additional procurement of F-22 fighters was not an initiative of the Obama Administration The preceding Bush Administration had decided cap the number of F-22s at the 183 planes already funded There was an effort to add funding for additional F-22s to the FY2010 DOD appropriations bill but the effort was dropped after President Obama threatened to veto any bill funding additional F-22s See CRS Report RL31673 Air Force F-22 Fighter Program Background and Issues for Congress by Jeremiah Gertler Congressional Research Service 21 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Army Combat Force Modernization Programs Some Members of Congress have raised questions about the Army’s Brigade Combat Team BCT Modernization program intended to develop a new generation of ground combat equipment for which the Administration requested $3 2 billion in FY2011 One controversial element of the program is the design of a proposed new Ground Combat Vehicle GCV The BCT Modernization program replaced the Future Combat System FCS program which had been intended to develop a new generation of combat equipment to replace current systems such as the M-1 Abrams tank and the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle By 2009 FCS involved efforts to develop 14 manned and unmanned systems tied together by an extensive communications and information network On April 6 2009 however Secretary of Defense Gates recommended cancelling the manned ground vehicle MGV component of FCS which was intended to field eight separate tracked combat vehicle variants built on a common chassis Secretary Gates said he acted because there were significant unanswered questions in the FCS vehicle design strategy and because despite some adjustments to the MGVs the emerging vehicles did not adequately reflect the lessons of counterinsurgency and close-quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan In place of MGV the Army launched the GCV program intended to field by 2015-2017 a family of fighting vehicles based on mature technologies and designed to readily incorporate future network capabilities Another potential oversight question for Congress is whether the Army is rushing the development of the GCV thereby inviting undue risk that would set the stage for another unsuccessful acquisition program 36 On August 25 2010—after the two Armed Services committees had drafted their respective versions of the FY2011 national defense authorization bill—the Army cancelled the existing competition for the GCV development contract and announced it was revising the performance specifications the new vehicle would have to meet The Army restarted the GCV competition on November 30 2010 While the MGV component of FCS was terminated other elements of the FCS program including sensors unmanned aerial and ground vehicles and a modified FCS command and control network were incorporated into the Army’s BCT Modernization program under which the service plans to “spin out” the components as they become available to all 73 Army BCTs by 2025 According to the Government Accountability Office GAO the FCS components that the Army plans to deploy under the “spin out” approach have not demonstrated their effectiveness in field exercises 37 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans38 The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requested funding for the procurement of nine new battle force ships i e ships that count against the 313-ship goal The nine ships included two attack submarines two destroyers two Littoral Combat Ships LCSs one amphibious assault ship one Mobile Landing Platform MLP ship i e a maritime prepositioning ship and one Joint High Speed Vessel JHSV The Navy’s five-year FY2011-FY2015 shipbuilding plan includes a total CRS Report RL32888 Army Future Combat System FCS “Spin-Outs” and Ground Combat Vehicle GCV Background and Issues for Congress by Andrew Feickert and Nathan Jacob Lucas 37 U S Government Accountability Office Defense Acquisitions Opportunities Exist to Position Army's Ground Force Modernization Effort for Success GAO-10-406 March 2010 38 Prepared in collaboration with Ronald O’Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs 36 Congressional Research Service 22 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations of 50 new battle force ships or an average of 10 per year Of the 50 ships in the plan half are relatively inexpensive LCSs or JHSVs The Navy’s FY2011 30-year FY2011-FY2040 shipbuilding plan includes 276 ships The plan does not include enough ships to fully support all elements of the 313-ship plan over the long run The Navy projects that implementing the 30-year plan would result in a fleet that grows from 284 ships in FY2011 to 315 ships in FY2020 reaches a peak of 320 ships in FY2024 drops below 313 ships in FY2027 declines to 288 ships in FY2032-FY2033 and then increases to 301 ships in FY2039-FY2040 The Navy projects that the attack submarine and cruiser-destroyer forces will drop substantially below required levels in the latter years of the 30-year plan The Navy estimates that executing the 30-year shipbuilding plan would require an average of $15 9 billion per year in constant FY2010 dollars A May 2010 Congressional Budget Office CBO report estimates that the plan would require an average of $19 0 billion per year in constant FY2010 dollars or about 18% more than the Navy estimates The CBO report states “If the Navy receives the same amount of funding for ship construction in the next 30 years as it has over the past three decades—an average of about $15 billion a year in 2010 dollars—it will not be able to afford all of the purchases in the 2011 plan ”39 Specific shipbuilding issues that were discussed at hearings on the Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget include the following Next Generation Ballistic Missile Submarine SSBN X The Navy is currently conducting development and design work on a planned class of 12 nextgeneration ballistic missile submarines or SSBN X s 1 which the service wants to procure as replacements for its current force of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines The SSBN X program also known as the Ohio-class replacement program received $497 4 million in research and development funding in the Navy's FY2010 budget and the Navy's FY2011 budget requested an additional $672 3 million in research and development funding for the program Navy plans to call for procuring the first SSBN X in FY2019 with advance procurement funding for the boat beginning in FY2015 The Navy preliminarily estimates the procurement cost of each SSBN X at $6 billion to $7 billion in FY2010 dollars—a figure equivalent to roughly one-half of the Navy's budget each year for procuring new ships Some observers are concerned that the SSBN X program will significantly compound the challenge the Navy faces in ensuring the affordability of its long-term shipbuilding program These observers are concerned that procuring 12 SSBN X s during the 15year period FY2019-FY2033 as called for in Navy plans could lead to reductions in procurement rates for other types of Navy ships during those years The Navy's report on its 30-year FY2011FY2040 shipbuilding plan states While the SSBN X is being procured the Navy will be limited in its ability to procure other ship classes See CRS Report R41129 Navy SSBN X Ballistic Missile Submarine Program Background and Issues for Congress by Ronald O'Rourke Options for reducing the cost of the SSBN X program or its potential impact on other Navy shipbuilding programs include procuring fewer than 12 SSBN X s reducing the number of submarine-launched ballistic missiles SLBMs to be carried by each SSBN X designing the SSBN X to carry a smaller SLBM stretching out the schedule for procuring SSBN X s and making greater use of split funding i e two-year incremental funding in procuring them 39 Congressional Budget Office “An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan ” May 2010 p vii Congressional Research Service 23 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations funding the procurement of SSBN X s in a part of the Department of Defense DOD budget other than the Navy’s shipbuilding account and increasing the Navy’s shipbuilding budget DDG-51 Destroyers and Ballistic Missile Defense The FY2010 budget that the Navy submitted to Congress last year proposed ending procurement of Zumwalt DDG-1000 class destroyers at three ships and resuming procurement of Arleigh Burke DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers Congress as part of its action on the FY2010 defense budget supported this proposal The Navy’s FY2011 budget submission called for procuring two DDG-51s in FY2011 and six more in FY2012-FY2015 The Navy’s FY2011 budget also proposed terminating the Navy’s planned CG X cruiser program as unaffordable Rather than starting to procure CG X s around FY2017 as the Navy had previously envisaged the Navy is proposing to build an improved version of the DDG-51 called the Flight III version starting in FY2016 Navy plans thus call for procuring the current version of the DDG-51 called the Flight IIA version in FY2010-FY2015 followed by procurement of Flight III DDG-51s starting in FY2016 Flight III DDG-51s are to carry a smaller version of the new Air and Missile Defense Radar AMDR that was to be carried by the CG X The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requested $228 4 million in research and development funding for the AMDR The Aegis ballistic missile defense BMD program which is carried out by the Missile Defense Agency MDA and the Navy gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations Under current MDA and Navy plans the number of BMD-capable Navy Aegis ships is scheduled to grow from 20 at the end of FY2010 to 38 at the end of FY2015 Some observers are concerned—particularly following the Administration’s announcement of its intention to use Aegis-BMD ships to defend Europe against potential ballistic missile attacks— that demands from U S regional military commanders for BMD-capable Aegis ships are growing faster than the number of BMD-capable Aegis ships They are also concerned that demands from U S regional military commanders for Aegis ships for conducting BMD operations could strain the Navy’s ability to provide regional military commanders with Aegis ships for performing nonBMD missions The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts MDA’s proposed FY2011 budget requested a total of $2 161 6 million for the Aegis BMD program The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requested a total of $457 0 million for BMD-related efforts FY2011 issues for Congress included whether to approve reject or modify the Navy’s proposal to develop the Flight III DDG-51 design and start procuring it in FY2016 whether to approve reject or modify the FY2011 MDA and Navy funding requests for the Aegis BMD program and whether to provide MDA or the Navy with additional direction concerning the program Littoral Combat Ship LCS The FY2011 budget requested $1 59 billion to fund two of a planned force of 55 Littoral Combat Ships LCS which are relatively small and inexpensive vessels compared to other U S warships designed to operate in shallow water carrying interchangeable weapons modules that would equip them either to fend off attacks by small boats clear underwater minefields or hunt submarines As initially planned the Navy was to buy several copies of each of two quite different versions of LCS designed by two industry teams—one led by Lockheed Martin the other by General Dynamics—before selecting one of the designs to comprise most of the LCS fleet Congressional Research Service 24 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations On September 16 2009 the Navy accelerated its timetable for choosing between the two designs announcing it would select a single design to which all LCSs procured in FY2010 and subsequent years would be built Under this plan the winning contractor would build 10 LCSs over the fiveyear period FY2010-FY2014 at a rate of two ships per year The Navy would then hold a second competition—open to all bidders other than the winning firm—to select a second shipyard to build up to five additional LCSs to the same design in FY2012-FY2014 one ship in FY2012 and two ships per year in FY2013-FY2014 These two shipyards would then compete for contracts to build LCSs procured in FY2015 and subsequent years On November 3 2010 Navy officials announced that they were seeking approval from Congress to pursue a different acquisition strategy buying 10 ships from each of the competing industry teams 40 Aircraft Programs41 Fighter aircraft are a major component of U S military capability and account for a significant portion of U S defense spending In early 2009 the Air Force Navy and Marine Corps collectively had an inventory of about 3 500 fighters Because fighters built in large numbers during the 1980s are nearing the end of their service lives there is a concern that the services may fall short of the number of planes needed because of budgetary limits on the rate at which replacement fighters can be procured Air Force officials in 2008 testimony projected an Air Force fighter shortfall of up to 800 aircraft by 2024 Navy officials have projected a Navy-Marine Corps strike fighter shortfall peaking at more than 100 aircraft and possibly more than 200 aircraft by about 2018 A key issue for Congress regarding tactical aircraft is the overall affordability of DOD's plans for modernizing the tactical aircraft force The issue has been a concern in Congress and elsewhere for many years with some observers predicting that tactical aircraft modernization is heading for an eventual budget train wreck as tactical aircraft acquisition plans collide with insufficient amounts of funding available for tactical aircraft acquisition 42 F-35 The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter JSF being procured in different versions for the Air Force Marine Corps and Navy is the key to DOD’s tactical aircraft modernization plans which call for acquiring a total of 2 443 JSFs at an estimated total acquisition cost as of December 31 2009 of about $238 billion in constant i e inflation-adjusted FY2002 dollars or more than $300 billion in current prices The F-35 program is DOD's largest weapon procurement program in terms of total estimated acquisition cost Hundreds of additional F-35s are slated to be purchased by several U S allies eight of which are cost-sharing partners in the program 43 The Administration's FY2011 budget requested a total of $11 3 billion for the F-35 program including $2 5 billion in Air Force and Navy research and development funding and $8 8 billion in Air Force and Navy procurement funding 44 40 http www navy mil search display asp story_id 57007 Prepared in collaboration with Jeremiah Gertler Specialist in Military Aviation 42 CRS Report RL33543 Tactical Aircraft Modernization Issues for Congress by Jeremiah Gertler 43 CRS Report RL30563 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter JSF Program Background and Issues for Congress by Jeremiah Gertler 44Development and procurement of Marine Corps aircraft are funded through the Navy's budget 41 Congressional Research Service 25 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Although the F-35 was conceived as a relatively affordable strike fighter some observers are concerned that in a situation of constrained DOD resources F-35s might not be affordable in the annual quantities planned by DOD at least not without reducing funding for other DOD programs As the annual production rate of the F-35 increases the program will require more than $10 billion per year in acquisition funding at the same time that DOD will face other budgetary challenges Supporters of the F-35 might argue that as a relatively affordable aircraft that can be procured in similar though not identical versions for the Air Force Marine Corps and Navy the F-35 represents the most economical and cost-effective strategy for avoiding or mitigating such shortfalls On October 18 2010 the British government announced as part of a far-reaching plan to reduce its defense spending that it would reduce the number of F-35s it planned to buy from the initially planned 138 planes to as few as 40 Moreover the British now plan to buy none of the verticaltakeoff version of the plane designated the “B” model of which Britain’s Royal Navy had been slated to make the second-largest purchase after the U S Marine Corps 45 F-35 Alternate Engine For four successive years Congress has rejected Administration proposals to terminate the program to develop the General Electric Rolls-Royce F136 engine as an alternative to the Pratt Whitney F135 engine that currently powers the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter JSF The Administration's FY2011 budget submission again proposed to terminate the program Through FY2009 Congress has provided approximately $2 5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program DOD has estimated that the program would need an additional $2 9 billion through 2017 to complete the development of the F136 engine 46 In a September 15 2010 letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin the GAO said that the DOD estimate “should be viewed as one point within a range of possible costs depending on the factors and assumptions used and not as an absolute amount ”47 Critics of the proposal to terminate the F136 alternate engine argue that termination was driven more by immediate budget pressures on the department than the long-term pros and cons of the F136 program They argue that engine competition on the F-15 and F-16 programs saved money and resulted in greater reliability Some who applaud the proposed termination say that singlesource engine production contracts have been the norm not the exception Long-term engine affordability they claim is best achieved by procuring engines through multiyear contracts from a single source Cancelling the F136 engine poses questions on the operational risk—particularly of fleet grounding—posed by having a single engine design and supplier Additional issues include the potential impact this termination might have on the U S defense industrial base and on U S relations with key allied countries involved in the alternate engine program Finally eliminating competitive market forces for DOD business worth billions of dollars may concern those who seek efficiency from DOD’s acquisition system and raises the challenge of cost control in a single-supplier environment 45Government of the United Kingdom Securing Britain in and Age of Uncertainty The Strategic Defense and Security Review October 2010 pp 22-23 Accessed at http www direct gov uk prod_consum_dg groups dg_digitalassets @dg @en documents digitalasset dg_191634 pdf 46 CRS Report R41131 F-35 Alternate Engine Program Background and Issues for Congress by Jeremiah Gertler 47 U S Government Accountability Office Joint Strike Fighter Assessment of DOD's Funding Projection for the F136 Alternate Engine GAO 10-1020R September 15 2010 p 2 Congressional Research Service 26 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Continuing F136 development raises issues of impact on the F-35 acquisition program including possible reduction of the numbers of F-35s that could be acquired if program funds are used for the alternate engine It also raises issues of the outyear costs and operational concerns stemming from the requirement to support two different engines in the field KC-X The Administration's proposed FY2011 defense budget requested $863 9 million in Air Force research and development funding for its third attempt since 2003 to acquire a new fleet of midair refueling tankers designated KC-X that would replace its aging fleet of KC-135 tankers An initial effort that involved leasing new tankers from Boeing was blocked by Congress A subsequent competition pitted Boeing which offered a tanker based on its 767 jetliner against the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company EADS which offered a tanker based on the EADS Airbus A330 On February 24 2010 the Department of Defense DOD released its Request for Proposals for a program to build 179 new KC-X aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force a contract valued at roughly $35 billion Bidding closed on July 9 2010 with three offerors submitting bids The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company EADS offered a KC-X design based on the Airbus A330 airliner to be built in Mobile AL Boeing offered a KC-X design based on its 767 airliner to be built in Seattle WA and Wichita KS A team of the Ukranian airframe maker Antonov and U S Aerospace offered a variant of the An-124 freighter with production location uncertain this bid was excluded for arriving after the deadline and the GAO subsequently denied U S Aerospace’s protest of the exclusion 48 On February 24 2011 DOD announced it would award the new tanker contract to Boeing On March 4 EADS announced it would not challenge that decision The KC-X acquisition program has been a subject of intense interest because of the dollar value of the contract the number of jobs it would create the importance of tanker aircraft to U S military operations and because DOD's attempts to acquire a new tanker over the past several years have been highly contentious The history of those earlier attempts forms an important part of the context for DOD's proposed new KC-X competition particularly in terms of defining the required capabilities for the KC-X and designing and conducting a fair and transparent competition Ballistic Missile Defense The George W Bush Administration had planned to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic a modified version of the land-based BMD system currently deployed in Alaska and California The Obama Administration dropped that plan in favor of the so-called Phased Adaptive Approach PAA which calls for deploying BMD-capable Aegis ships and eventually a relocatable landbased version of the Aegis system and associated Standard missile to defend Europe and eventually the United States against potential ballistic missile attacks from Iran The 48 CRS Report RL34398 Air Force KC-46A Tanker Aircraft Program Background and Issues for Congress by Jeremiah Gertler Congressional Research Service 27 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Administration has said that similar BMD capabilities could be pursued in other regions such as the Middle East and Northeast Asia 49 The Administration requested a total of $2 27 billion in FY2011 for programs associated with the PAA including $712 million for development efforts unique to PAA and an additional $1 56 billion to continue development and procurement of the Aegis ship-borne BMD system that would be integral to PAA as well as other missile defense missions Military Construction50 The $18 7 billion requested in the FY2011 base budget for military construction and family housing is nearly 20% lower than the corresponding appropriation for FY2010 Most of the reduction is the result of a decline from $7 9 billion to $2 7 billion in the amount that is being spent to build new facilities for units that are moving to new sites as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure BRAC Commission Most of that BRAC-related construction was funded in earlier budgets since the deadline for completing the moves is September 15 2011 In addition the budget for military family housing dropped from $2 3 billion in FY2010 to $1 8 billion in the FY2011 request According to DOD officials this is a result of a policy begun in the late 1990s of privatizing military family housing The amounts appropriated for the Basic Allowance for Housing paid to personnel who do not live in government furnished housing has increased over the past decade partly because more service members are paying rent to private landlords and partly because of a policy decision that housing allowances which are pegged to regional home rental and utility costs should cover a larger proportion of a service member’s housing costs Aircraft Carrier Homeport The FY2011 DOD bills provided a vehicle for those Members of Congress opposed to the Navy’s plan to move to Mayport FL one of the five nuclear powered aircraft carriers currently homeported in Norfolk VA The Department of Defense’s DOD’s final report on the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review QDR released on February 1 2010 endorses the Navy’s desire to establish Mayport as a second Atlantic Fleet carrier home port The report stated To mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack accident or natural disaster the U S Navy will homeport an East Coast carrier in Mayport Florida Because all carriers currently in service are nuclear powered such a move would require the construction of new specialized nuclear support facilities at the Mayport site near Jacksonville In addition such a move would shift from Norfolk to Mayport the local economic activity associated with homeporting an aircraft carrier which some sources estimate as being worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year 51 Certain Members of Congress from Florida have expressed support for the proposal to homeport an aircraft carrier at Mayport endorsing the argument made by DOD and the Navy that the benefits in terms of mitigating risks to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet CVNs are worth the costs associated with moving a CVN to Mayport which the Navy estimates would total $589 7 million 49 For additional analysis see CRS Report RL34051 Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe by Steven A Hildreth and Carl Ek 50 Prepared in collaboration with Daniel H Else Specialist in National Defense 51 CRS Report R40248 Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier CVN Homeporting at Mayport Background and Issues for Congress by Ronald O'Rourke Congressional Research Service 28 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations That total includes $46 3 million for dredging which Congress approved in its action on the FY2010 DOD budget but with the proviso that it was not prejudging the issue of the carrier homeport Certain Members of Congress from Virginia have expressed skepticism regarding or opposition to the proposal arguing that the benefits in terms of mitigating risks to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet CVNs are questionable or uncertain and that the funding needed to implement the proposal could achieve greater benefits if it were spent on other Navy priorities Marine Corps Relocation to Guam The Administration’s budget included $139 million for facilities on the U S territory of Guam in the western Pacific for use by 8 000 Marines their families and support personnel slated to move to that island from the Japanese island of Okinawa The planned move is the result of extensive negotiations between the Departments of State and Defense and the Government of Japan DOD also plans to move additional military personnel to Guam from their current stations in the United States These relocations are expected to be completed by 2014-2016 Guam is a mountainous island with an area roughly three times that of the District of Columbia and a population of about 178 000 Estimates of the permanent increase in population due to the planned influx of military personnel their families DOD personnel and supporting contractors have ranged as high as 56 000 In addition some analysts have estimated that as many as 25 000 temporary workers would be needed to build the planned facilities a number amounting to 14% of the population These analysts question whether Guam’s current transportation electrical and utility grid could support such a surge in the island’s population 52 US CYBERCOM The Administration’s budget supported the creation of the U S Cyber Command USCYBERCOM as a component of the U S Strategic Command that is intended to centralize command of DOD networks and to coordinate their protection and operation The reorganization of cyber forces began in October 2008 when Secretary Gates directed that the Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations JTF GNO which was responsible for defending DOD’s global information grid against cyber attack be placed under the operational control of the Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare JFCC NW which was responsible for “offensive” information operations including cyber attacks on adversaries This integration into one organization of responsibility for both offensive and defensive cyber operations marked a departure from the historical segregation of those two capabilities 53 In June 2009 Secretary Gates took the consolidation of DOD cyber operations one step further directing the U S Strategic Command to establish U S Cyber Command as one of its components with responsibility for both offensive and defensive cyber operations The director of the National Security Agency NSA was nominated to lead the new command while retaining the NSA directorship 54 52 See CRS Report RS22570 Guam U S Defense Deployments by Shirley A Kan and CRS Report R40731 Military Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies FY2010 Appropriations coordinated by Daniel H Else 53 For background see CRS Report RL31787 Information Operations Cyberwarfare and Cybersecurity Capabilities and Related Policy Issues by Catherine A Theohary 54 Cyber Command was officially activated by the Secretary of Defense on May 21 2010 after the Senate confirmed the nomination of NSA Director Lt Gen Keith B Alexander to head the new command while retaining his NSA post with the rank of General Congressional Research Service 29 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Some observers contend that co-locating offensive and defensive cyber capabilities represents the militarization of cyberspace and that NSA involvement will impinge upon the privacy of civilian information systems Others maintain that centralized command will better organize and standardize DOD cyber practices and operations and that the new command will be responsible only for defending DOD networks providing support for civil authorities upon request The Administration’s FY2011 budget request for Air Force Operations and Maintenance reportedly included $139 million to stand up U S Cyber Command an increase of approximately $105 million above the FY2010 Cyber Command budget that would fund the lease of temporary facilities and infrastructure at Ft Meade MD where the organization is to be located 55 State Department Role in Security Assistance Some elements of the FY2011 DOD budget request reflected what the Obama Administration describes as an effort to “rebalance” the roles of DOD and the State Department in providing foreign assistance particularly security assistance The FY2011 NDAA legislation does not include two programs previously funded by DOD because the Administration requested these controversial items in the Department of State budget   The so-called “Section 1207” program to provide crisis reaction funding for reconstruction security and stabilization activities that are up for funding in the State Department USAID Complex Crisis Fund $100 million in the State Department budget 56 and The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund that is the PCCF $1 2 billion in the State Department Budget In FY2012 the State Department also will take responsibility for Iraq police training The DOD budget request for FY2011 includes funding for the Iraq Security Forces Fund ISSF used for Iraqi police training even though the State Department FY2011 budget request also includes police support funding for the FY2011 transition year 57 Funding for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund ASFF to train the Afghan National Police remains in the DOD budget 58 In its FY2011 budget request the Department of State stated that the transfer of the Section 1207 PCCF and Iraqi police training will “begin to rebalance the roles between DOD and State ”59 Nevertheless within weeks of the Administration’s release of its FY2011 budget request statements by some Pentagon officials seemed to call for DOD to maintain if not expand its current role in security assistance The Administration is engaged in an extensive interagency review over the appropriate division of security assistance authorities which the Senate Armed Services Committee SASC took note of in the report accompanying its version of the FY2011 Officials in the U S Strategic Command have cited the figures that appear in the following article by DOD’s inhouse news service however CRS is unable to independently verify the actual numbers from DOD budget documents with the exception of the approximately $105 million requested covering classified aspects of U S Cyber Command standup See “Cybersecurity Seizes More Attention Budget Dollars ” by John J Kruzel Armed Forces Press Services February 4 2010 accessed at http www defense gov news newsarticle aspx id 57871 56 DOD funding was authorized by Section 1207 of P L 109-163 as amended 57 The Administration’s supplemental appropriations request for FY2010 included $650 million to initiate this transfer For further analysis of the FY2010 request see CRS Report R41232 FY2010 Supplemental for Wars Disaster Assistance Haiti Relief and Other Programs coordinated by Amy Belasco 58 For details on ISSF and ASFF funding see CRS Report RL33110 The Cost of Iraq Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9 11 by Amy Belasco 59 For additional analysis of the State Department funding request for these programs see CRS Report R41228 State Foreign Operations and Related Programs FY2011 Budget and Appropriations op cit 55 Congressional Research Service 30 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations NDAA S Rept 111-201 stating it “welcomes this review and looks forward to any proposals for enhancing U S security assistance that result from this process ” In a February 24 2010 speech Secretary of Defense Robert M Gates said that advising and mentoring foreign security forces is becoming a key military mission He cited changes that the armed forces are making in their own organization to facilitate their role in advising training and assisting partner nations His remarks reflect recommendations contained in the February 8 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review QDR Report that called for all four armed services “to strengthen and institutionalize” their capability to train and advise the security forces of partner nations Secretary Gates’ remarks were reinforced by a March 3 2010 speech by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen who urged that military power should not be considered the last resort of the state “but as potentially the best first option” when combined with diplomacy and other instruments of national power Both Secretary Gates and Adm Mullen as well as the QDR report encouraged lawmakers to substantially bolster civilian capabilities to assist foreign governments in preventing containing and recovering from conflict All three described a new relationship between defense and diplomacy which “are no longer discrete choices … but must in fact complement one another throughout the messy process of international relations “ according to Chairman Mullen Consistent with this position the Administration’s FY2011 DOD budget request leaves under DOD’s control other controversial security assistance programs notably the so-called “Section 1206” program to train and equip the security forces of other countries threatened by terrorists for which the budget included $489 5 million 60 The DOD budget also contains a funding request for the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program $33 3 million and two new DOD security assistance programs created in FY2010 the Defense Institution Reform Initiative to promote the institutional development of foreign defense ministries $5 7 million and a related program to provide legal instruction to foreign military members and civilian government officials $1 6 million The FY2011 request also would launch a new program the Stability Operations Fellowship Program $5 0 million but Congress has turned down this proposal in the past While affirming in his February speech that the State Department should maintain the lead Secretary Gates described the current national security system as outmoded with the roles of defense and diplomacy designed for a different set of threats than those the United States faces today According to some defense experts some Members have considered introducing legislation based on one Gates’ proposal a pooled fund for security assistance to which DOD State and USAID contribute but instead are awaiting the Administration’s own proposal 60 DOD funding for this program was authorized by Section 1206 of P L 109-163 as amended For more information on Section 1206 funding see CRS Report RL32862 Peacekeeping Stabilization and Conflict Transitions Background and Congressional Action on the Civilian Response Reserve Corps and other Civilian Stabilization and Reconstruction Capabilities by Nina M Serafino Congressional Research Service 31 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act H R 5136 S 3454 H R 6523 The version of the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act passed May 28 by the House H R 5136 H Rept 111-491 would authorize $725 9 billion for DOD and other defense-related activities which is $2 7 million less than the Administration requested The version of the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 4 2010 S 3454 S Rept 111-201 would authorize $725 7 billion a reduction of $240 7 million from the Administration’s request The Senate did not act on this version of bill partly because of opposition to a provision that would have repealed a 1993 law 10 U S C 654 that in effect had barred from military service those who are openly homosexual establishing a policy colloquially referred to as “don’t ask don’t tell ” S 3454 was set aside after the Senate on December 9 2010 rejected a motion to invoke cloture on motion to begin consideration of the bill The vote was 57-40 in favor of invoking cloture which would have required 60 “yea” votes Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees subsequently negotiated a compromise version of the authorization bill H R 6523 which dropped the provision relating to the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy which was cleared for the President on December 22 2010 and signed by the President on January 7 2011 P L 111-383 As is customary H R 6523 authorized lump-sum totals to be appropriated for each several dozen appropriations accounts in the DOD and Energy Department budgets Table 11 However neither the text of the bill nor the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement 61 included the customary funding tables allocating those totals among specific programs Lump-sum Authorizations With No Program Detail in H R 6523 As enacted the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 H R 6523 does not include funding details for specific procurement and R D programs in most cases either in the text of the bill or in the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement Committee Print HASC No 5 So with a handful of exceptions the final version of the authorization bill does not authorize specific amounts for any acquisition program In following synopsis of action on the FY2011 authorization bill funding levels requested by the Administration for some programs and the levels approved for those programs by the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the authorization bill are included to provide context for other program-related actions incorporated in the final version of the bill Authorization levels requested and approved by the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the bill are presented in the Appendix 61 The Joint Explanatory Statement equivalent to a conference report was published by the House Armed Services Committee as a Committee print “Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committees on Armed Services of the U S Senate and House of Representatives on H R 6523 Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 ” December 22 2010 accessed at http www gpo gov fdsys pkg CPRT-111HPRT63160 pdf CPRT111HPRT63160 pdf Congressional Research Service 32 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Table 11 FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act H R 5136 S 3454 H R 6523 amounts in millions of dollars Administration request House-passed H R 5136 Senate Armed Services Committee reported S 3454 H R 6523 as enacted P L 111-383 Division A DOD Base Budget except Military Construction Procurement 111 377 111 246 111 751 110 433 Research and Development 76 131 76 473 76 799 76 587 Operation and Maintenance 167 879 167 620 168 224 168 151 Military Personnel 138 541 138 541 138 541 138 541 36 197 36 243 36 265 36 153 530 124 530 124 531 579 529 864 14 209 14 649 14 197 13 653 Family Housing 1 823 1 823 1 823 1 823 Base Realignment and Closure BRAC 2 715 2 715 2 715 2 715 0 -441 0 0 18 747 18 745 18 735 18 191 548 871 548 869 550 314 548 055 17 716 17 716 17 721 17 716 Total National Defense Budget Function 050 FY2011 Base Budget 566 587 566 585 568 034 565 892 FY2011 Overseas Contingency Operations DOD 159 336 159 335 157 648 158 750 Grand Total FY2011 National Defense 725 922 725 920 725 682 724 642 Other Authorizations Subtotal DOD Base Budget except MilCon Division B Military Construction Base Budget Military Construction General Reductions Subtotal Military Construction Base Budget Total DOD Base Budget Division C Department of Energy Nuclear National Security Agency NNSA and Other Authorizations Sources House Armed Services Committee Report on H R 5136 the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 H Rept 111-491 pp 4-13 Senate Armed Services Committee Report on S 3454 the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 S Rept 111-201 pp 5-9 House Armed Services Committee Committee Print HASC No 5 “Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany H R 6523 Public Law 111-383 ” Following are highlights of H R 5136 as passed by the House S 3454 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the final version of the authorization bill H R 6523 as enacted P L 111-383 Congressional Research Service 33 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Military Personnel Issues Authorization 62 All three versions of the defense authorization bill would authorize as requested a total endstrength of 1 43 million members for the active-duty components of the four armed services This is an increase of 7 400 over the end-strength authorized for FY2010 Military Compensation The Senate committee bill and the final version authorized a 1 4% increase in military basic pay as requested by the Administration The House-passed bill would have authorized a 1 9% raise which the committee said would have added $380 million to the FY2011 military personnel costs Section 601 The final bill did not include provisions in the House bill would have authorized 1 an increase in the monthly allowance paid to married personnel who are separated from their families by deployment from $250 to $285 and 2 an increase in the monthly payments to personnel whose assignments subject them to risk of hostile fire or imminent danger from $225 to $260 In its report to accompany S 3454 the Senate Armed Services Committee directed the Government Accountability Office GAO to assess DOD’s use of cash incentives to recruit and retain highly qualified individuals into hard-to-fill specialties that are essential in wartime In particular it directs GAO to review the process by which DOD identifies specialties for which such incentives are offered The Senate committee also directed GAO to assess the efficiency and accuracy of the process by which DOD determines the size of the housing allowance paid to service members assigned to any given base who do not occupy government-provided housing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” The final version of the FY2011 defense authorization act did not include a controversial provision included in both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the bill that would have repealed the 1993 legislation barring openly homosexual persons from military service Such a provision was enacted as a free-standing law H R 2965 P L 111-321 On May 27 2011 the House had adopted by a vote of 234-194 an amendment to H R 5136 by Representative Patrick Murphy that would repeal the 1993 legislation barring openly homosexual persons from military service after 1 the current DOD review has been completed and 2 the President the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have certified to Congress that policies and regulations have been prepared that would allow the repeal of the ban to be implemented in a way that is “consistent with the standards of military readiness military effectiveness unit cohesion and recruiting and retention of the armed forces ” This provision which was incorporated in the House bill as Section 536 was substantially the language that had been agreed to in negotiations between proponents of repeal and Administration officials On June 1 2010 the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to include in S 3454 a substantially identical provision Section 591 On September 21 2010 the Senate voted on a motion to invoke cloture on debate over whether to begin consideration of the bill During the brief debate preceding that vote Senator John McCain the senior Republican member of the Armed Services Committee contended that Senate action on the bill was premature since DOD had not yet concluded its review of the effects of repealing the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy The For background see “Military Personnel ” pp 17 ff For appropriations action see “Military Personnel and Medical Care Issues Appropriations ” p 52 62 Congressional Research Service 34 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations motion to invoke cloture which would have required 60 votes for adoption failed on a vote of 56-43 Abortions in Military Medical Facilities The final version of the bill did not include a provision of the Senate committee version that would have repealed an existing law that prohibits the use of any military facility to perform abortion with certain exceptions This action would have allowed DOD to return to the policy it followed in 1993-1995 of allowing military facilities to provide abortions using private funds 63 Although repeal has been advocated on the grounds that such an action would protect U S service members stationed overseas the Senate committee provision would have applied to all DOD facilities foreign and domestic Alternative Career Track for Officers The enacted version of the authorization bill did not include a House-passed provision that would have authorized a pilot program to assess the value of allowing a certain number of officers to pursue a more varied range of mid-career educational programs and assignments outside of their service for the sake of broadening their experience and strategic judgment To allow for this richer mixture of experience participants would have been given leeway to skip or delay some of the established requirements and deadlines for promotion and might be required to commit to a longer-than-usual period of service Section 661 Sexual Assault The original House-passed version of the bill included 28 provisions that would have enacted many of the recommendations of a congressionally chartered DOD commission studying the issue of sexual assault in the military 64 The enacted version of the bill included many of these provisions mostly with modifications but not others The final version of the bill establishes in law the position of director of DOD’s Sexual Assault Response and Prevention office but without the additional requirement in the House-passed bill that the job be held by a flag or general officer or a civil servant of comparable rank It also requires that DOD establish improved protocols for the medical care of military personnel and their dependents who are sexual assault victims and it guarantees that such victims have access to victim advocates H R 6523 does not include provisions of the original House-passed bill that would have guaranteed the confidentiality of victims’ communications with victim advocates Nor does it include provisions of the original House bill that would have guaranteed such victims legal assistance and required the establishment of a hotline for reporting sexual assaults The bill does require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the feasibility of authorizing sexual assault victims to receive assistance from military legal counsel 63 For additional analysis see CRS Report 95-387 Abortion Services and Military Medical Facilities by David F Burrelli 64 The commission was established by Section 576 of the Ronald W Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 H R 4200 Congressional Research Service 35 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Medical Care Authorization 65 H R 6523 like both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the authorization bill would authorize substantially all of the Administration’s $50 7 billion budget request for DOD’s health care program TRICARE Fee Limitation Although the budget request did not include increases in TRICARE fees and pharmacy copayments which the Bush and Obama Administrations had recommended in prior years and which Congress regularly had rejected the House-passed H R 5136 the Senate Armed Services Committee’s S 3454 and the final enacted version of the authorization bill H R 6523 each contain provisions similar to those Congress had enacted in earlier years prohibiting any increase in TRICARE fees and pharmacy copayments 66 All three versions of the bill allow TRICARE beneficiaries to extend coverage to their dependent children up to age 26 an option made available to beneficiaries of private health insurance programs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act P L 111-148 the health care reform bill enacted in April 2010 Section 702 The enacted version of the bill did not include a House provision that would have authorized the President through the Secretary of Defense to establish a unified medical command Section 903 under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and a new Defense Health Agency to administer the TRICARE program Fort Hood Shooting Incident H R 6523 as enacted included a modified version of a House-passed provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the training programs for officers in the services’ medical corps properly document their academic and military performance The provision was a response to a November 2009 incident at Fort Hood TX in November 2009 in which an Army psychiatrist allegedly opened fire on troops preparing for deployment to Iraq There were allegations that the supposed perpetrator had a record of substandard and erratic performance The final version of the authorization bill did not include two other provisions of the Housepassed H R 5136 that were intended to deal with the causes and consequences of the incident at Fort Hood and another one at a recruiting station in Little Rock AR on June 1 2009 in which service members and DOD civilians were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks The House provision not included in the final bill would have  provided special compensation to persons killed or wounded in those two incidents or in any other incident subsequent to November 6 2009 in which service members or DOD civilians were targeted because of their affiliation with the U S military Section 619 These individuals would be awarded the same compensation as DOD personnel killed or wounded in a combat zone For background see “Military Health Care Costs” pp 20 ff For appropriations action see “Military Personnel and Medical Care Issues Appropriations ” p 52 66 The relevant provisions are numbered Section 701 both in the House bill and in the Senate committee bill For background see “Military Health Care Costs ” above 65 Congressional Research Service 36 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations  required the Secretary of Defense to earmark up to $100 million in a fund to implement recommendations of a panel that had been set up by DOD to analyze the Fort Hood incident 67 Ballistic Missile Defense Strategic Weapons and the New START Treaty Authorization 68 Both the bill passed by the House and the one reported by the Senate committee generally supported the Administration’s ballistic missile defense BMD activities including its plan for defending U S troops and allies in Europe against ballistic missiles attacks from Iran Both bills would have authorized slightly more than the $10 3 billion requested for missile defense with H R 5136 adding $361 6 million and the Senate committee’s S 3454 adding $349 1 million Consistent with both the House-passed and Senate committee bills H R 6523 specifically authorized $205 million to continue development of Israel’s “Iron Dome” system which is intended to intercept short-range bombardment rockets and artillery shells DOD had requested the funds after the FY2011 budget request was sent to Congress Except for the funding for “Iron Dome ” neither H R 6523 as enacted nor its accompanying explanatory statement allocates among specific programs the lump-sums authorized for each appropriations account Thus the bill does not authorize any identifiable total for the set of programs that comprise the Administration’s missile defense plan Funding levels that would have been authorized for specific missile defense programs by H R 5136 and S 3454 are presented in Table A-2 Like the House-passed and Senate committee versions of the bill H R 6523 include a provision affirming that the strategic arms reduction treaty with the Russian Federation dubbed “New START which the Senate approved on December 22 2010 would not restrict U S missile defense programs Some Russian sources have asserted that the Administration’s plan for defending Europe against long-range ballistic missiles would undermine the treaty 69 Phased Adaptive Approach Missile Defense for Europe and Arms Control The Administration requested a total of $2 27 billion in FY2011 for programs associated with its so-called “Phased Adaptive Approach” PAA for defending Europe against long-range ballistic missiles The budget requested $712 million for development efforts unique to PAA and an additional $1 56 billion to continue development and procurement of the Aegis ship-borne BMD system that would be integral to PAA as well as other missile defense missions The final version of the authorization bill requires a DOD report on the PAA It also would place restrictions on the PAA similar to those that Congress previously had applied to the Bush plan namely An independent panel established by the Secretary of Defense to review the incident issued its report “Protecting the Force Lessons from Fort Hood ” in January 2010 The report was accessed at http www defense gov pubs pdfs DOD-ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10 pdf on September 15 2010 68 For background see “Ballistic Missile Defense” p 28 For appropriations action see “Missile Defense and Strategic Strike Appropriations ” p 52 69 For background see CRS Report R41251 Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions A Review of the Historical Record by Steven A Hildreth and Amy F Woolf and CRS Report R41219 The New START Treaty Central Limits and Key Provisions by Amy F Woolf 67 Congressional Research Service 37 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations   It limits deployment in Europe of defenses against medium-range and long-range missiles until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the proposed technology is operationally effective based on realistic flight tests and It limits the use of funds for BMD deployments in any country until the host government has ratified any necessary agreements and until 45 days after Congress has received a report on alternative BMD systems for Europe required by the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act P L 111-84 Unlike the House-passed bill which included similar restrictions on the PAA H R 6523 allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the two provisions in the interest of national security The final version of the bill also includes a provision authorizing the establishment of a shared ballistic missile early warning system with the Czech Republic The Administration had requested the authorization in May 2010 too late to be included in either H R 5136 or S 3454 In addition the final version declared as the sense of Congress several propositions that the House-passed and Senate committee versions also had endorsed either as statements of national policy or as expressions of the sense of Congress Among these were statements that    a future version of the Standard missile be able to intercept Iranian ICBMs aimed at U S territory DOD should continue development of the two-stage ground-based interceptor as hedge against potential technical challenges with the Standard missile and PAA is not intended to diminish strategic stability with the Russian Federation The final version of the authorization bill does not include provisions in the House bill that would have   barred the reduction of U S nuclear weapons below the limits set by the New START Treaty until 180 days after the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator for Nuclear Security of the Nuclear National Security Administration of the Department of Energy submit to Congress a joint report justifying the proposed cuts in detail Section 1058 and expressed the sense of Congress that the Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review published April 6 2010 weakens U S security by foreswearing the option of using nuclear weapons to retaliate for a catastrophic attack on the United States by a non-nuclear-armed state using chemical or biological weapons 70 Shipbuilding Authorization 71 The final version of the authorization bill like the House-passed and Senate committee versions approved the $15 7 billion requested for Navy shipbuilding Although H R 6523 did not allocate that amount among specific programs the budget request included funding for two DDG-51 Aegis destroyers $2 92 billion two Virginia-class attack submarines $3 44 billion two Littoral Combat Ships $1 23 billion a high-speed troop and cargo carrier designated an “intratheater connector” $180 7 million an oceanographic research ship $88 6 million The request also 70 See Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review Report April 6 2010 at http www defense gov npr docs 2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report pdf 71 For background see “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans” pp 23 ff Congressional Research Service 38 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations included the fourth and final increment of funding for the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier U S S Gerald R Ford $1 73 billion the first of two increments for an LHA-class helicopter carrier to support amphibious landings $949 9 million and the third increment of funding for refueling and overhauling the nuclear-powered carrier U S S Theodore Roosevelt $1 26 billion 72 Incremental Funding of Major Warships Although incremental funding has become the norm in recent years for very expensive ships including aircraft carriers and large amphibious assault ships it is an anomaly in the congressional appropriations process that with a few exceptions requires that the full cost of a weapons system be budgeted in one year 73 Existing law allows aircraft carriers to be incrementally funded for up to four years and H R 6523 includes a provision that would allow a helicopter carrier LHA-7 to be funded over two years A provision of the House-passed bill would have provided a general exception to the “full funding” rule for large amphibious assault ships Fleet Size H R 6523 included a provision requiring a report on how the Navy’s shipbuilding requirements could be affected by the Administration’s plan to use cruisers and destroyers equipped with the Aegis anti-missile system to provide anti-ballistic missile protection for various regions It directed DOD to report its plans for regional BMD deployments inasmuch as the demand for Aegis missile-defense ships is expected to exceed the supply for some time to come The final version of the authorization bill did not include two other provisions from the Housepassed bill that were intended to prevent a decline in the size of the fleet One of those House provisions would have blocked the planned retirement of two large helicopter carriers until their replacements are in service The other would have barred the Navy from retiring more than two ships for every three new vessels commissioned except for submarines until the size of the fleet reaches the Navy’s current goal of 313 ships In its report to accompany S 3454 the Senate committee said that the Navy’s projected shipbuilding schedule was overly optimistic but even so would not purchase enough ships to sustain the array of commercial shipyards on which DOD relies for the construction of new ships The committee directed the Secretary of Defense and the Congressional Budget Office each to conduct a formal assessment of how the Navy’s plans for building new ships and retiring existing ones would affect the Marine Corps’s ability to conduct major amphibious landings Navy and Marine Corps leaders have agreed that while a fleet of 38 amphibious landing ships would be the ideal number to support two brigade-sized assault landings the 33 ships contemplated by the Navy’s most recent long-range shipbuilding plan would be adequate But the Senate committee said that cost increases and construction delays might make it impossible to reach the reduced goal of 33 amphibious ships For several ships that would receive the bulk of their funding in the FY2011 budget so-called “long-lead” funding totaling as much as several hundred million dollars has been provided in earlier budgets to buy components needed in the early stages of construction Similarly the $15 7 billion requested for shipbuilding in FY2011 includes more than $3 billion in long-lead funding for ships slated to receive most of their funding in future budgets 73 See CRS Report RL31404 Defense Procurement Full Funding Policy—Background Issues and Options for Congress by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett 72 Congressional Research Service 39 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Ballistic Missile Submarines The final version of the FY2011 defense authorization bill included no language relating to the Navy’s plan to replace its 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines with a new class of submarines which would be large enough to carry the Trident II D-5 missile carried by the current class Because of their expense these new ships designated SSBN X are expected to absorb a large share of the Navy’s shipbuilding budgets after 2016 possibly crowding out the construction of other planned ships 74 The House-passed and Senate committee reported versions of the authorization bill would have approved the $672 3 million requested for SSBN X development in FY2011 but the final version of the bill approves only a lump-sum authorization for Navy R D without allocating that total among specific programs The final version of the bill did not include a House-passed provision that would have barred the Navy from obligating more than half of the money until the Secretary of Defense submits a report including certain information about the program Aircraft Authorization 75 Neither the House-passed nor the Senate committee-reported bill would have authorized funds to continue production of the C-17 wide-body cargo jet for which the Administration requested no funds Over the objections of the Bush and Obama Administrations Congress had added funds to the FY2009 and FY2010 budgets to continue C-17 production The Administration has warned that any bill funding production of additional C-17s would be vetoed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Alternate Engine The Armed Services committees of the Senate and House each had decried cost overruns in the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program and delays in its flight test program As enacted the authorization bill included a Senate committee provision requiring DOD to create a detailed plan by which Congress could assess the ongoing progress of the F-35 development program The final bill did not include a House provision that would have limited the number of F-35s procured in FY2011 until DOD certified that the program has met several cost and performance milestones Both the House-passed and Senate committee-approved versions of the bill would have authorized a total of $11 billion to continue development of the F-35 aircraft and purchase 42 planes Both bills also rejected a request for one additional F-35 $205 million that would have been authorized in the part of the bill dealing with war costs The Administration’s rationale for this additional plane was that it was to replace a fighter that was lost during the currently ongoing combat operations In its report on H R 5136 the House Armed Services Committee noted that the Air Force could replace the lost aircraft by continuing to operate another fighter of the same type slated for retirement The House-passed bill would have added to the budget $485 million to continue development of an alternate jet engine for the F-35 The Senate committee’s bill would not have provided additional funds for the second engine The enacted version of the bill takes no specific position on the additional funding The final bill did not include a Senate committee provision that would have barred the expenditure of any additional funds for the alternate engine unless the Secretary of Defense 74 See CRS Report R41129 Navy SSBN X Ballistic Missile Submarine Program Background and Issues for Congress by Ronald O'Rourke 75 For background see “Aircraft Programs ” pp 26 ff For appropriations action see “Aircraft Appropriations ” p 53 Congressional Research Service 40 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations certified that that project would reduce the life-cycle cost and improve the operational readiness of the F-35 fleet while neither disrupting the plane’s development program nor resulting in a reduction in the number of planes purchased In a May 20 2010 Pentagon press conference Secretary Gates reaffirmed his intention to recommend that President Obama veto any defense bill that funded the alternate F-35 engine He also said that the detailed requirements the committee bill placed on the F-35 test program and production schedule would make the program “unexecutable ”76 F A-18E F The House and Senate Armed Services Committees each contend that the Navy’s planned aircraft procurement budgets would result in an unwise drop in the number of carrier-borne fighters because delays in the F-35 program mean that older F A-18s will be retired before the planes meant to replace them are in service To bridge this so-called “strike fighter gap ” both the House-passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill would have added funding for additional F A-18E F model fighters Because the enacted bill does not allocate authorization totals among specific programs it does not authorize any specific number of the planes The enacted bill also includes a modified version of a Senate committee provision requiring the Navy to report to Congress on the cost and risks of dealing with the projected strike fighter gap either by extending the service life of F A-18s currently in service or by reducing the number of planes in certain F A-18 squadrons KC-X The House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills each would authorize as requested $863 9 million to continue development of the KC-X mid-air refueling tanker France-based EADS proposed a tanker based on its Airbus A-330 to compete with a Boeing bid based on its 767 jetliner By a vote of 410-8 the House adopted an amendment to H R 5136 Section 839 that would require DOD to take into account when considering bids for the KC-X tanker “any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess ” and to submit a report on such advantages to Congress The provision defines an “unfair competitive advantage” as “a situation in which the cost of development production or manufacturing is not fully borne by the offeror for such contract ” Several House Members speaking in support of the amendment indicated that it was based on a finding by the World Trade Organization that France-based EADS had received government subsidies for its commercial airliners that might give it an unfair advantage when bidding on KC-X However the amendment was supported by many avowed supporters of both planes The provision was not included in H R 6523 On February 24 2011 DOD announced it had selected Boeing’s tanker design which is designated the KC-46A On March 4 2011 EADS announced it would not challenge Boeing’s selection 76May 20 2010 DOD press conference accessed at http www defense gov transcripts transcript aspx transcriptid 4625 Congressional Research Service 41 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Ground Combat Vehicle and Brigade Combat Team Modernization Authorization 77 Both H R 5136 as passed by the House and S 3454 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee would deny authorization for part of the $3 19 billion requested by the Army for its Brigade Combat Team BCT Modernization program which is the successor to the service’s Future Combat Systems FCS program FCS was an effort to develop an array of digitally linked manned and unmanned vehicles which Secretary Gates terminated in 2009 on grounds that it was too complex and too expensive The House-passed and Senate committee-recommended versions of the authorization bill both would have denied $431 8 billion requested for the Non-Line of Sight N-LOS missile program which DOD cancelled after the FY2011 budget was submitted However the House bill went considerably further in trimming back the Army’s plan cutting an additional $347 4 million from the total BCT Modernization request whereas the Senate committee cut the request by only $29 7 million beyond the N-LOS reduction The enacted version of the authorization did not allocate a specific funding level to the projects comprising the BCT program The House-passed and Senate committee-recommended bills each would have authorized the $934 4 million requested as part of the BCT Modernization program to develop a new family of Ground Combat Vehicles GCV In its report on H R 5136 the House Armed Services Committee urged the Army to take a less technologically ambitious approach with the new combat vehicle program It urged the Army to focus on developing vehicles that could meet basic requirements and be upgraded later The panel also said that the Army should consider whether its current fleet of combat vehicles could be upgraded to meet the basic GCV requirements It included in the bill a provision that would allow the Army to spend only half of the FY2011 GCV appropriation until the service provides the committee with a detailed analysis of its plans for developing the new fleet of vehicles Subsequently DOD reduced its FY2011 GCV funding request to $461 million While the enacted version of the authorization bill includes no details on funding for individual programs such as GCV the House Armed Services Committee’s press release on the enacted bill said H R 6523 “fully funds the Administration’s adjusted request of $461 million ”78 Military Construction Carrier Homeport and Guam Authorization 79 The enacted version of the authorization bill did not include a House provision that would have barred the use of any funds authorized by the bill to plan and design structures at the Naval Station in Mayport FL to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier In its report accompanying the House-passed version of the bill the House Armed Services Committee directed the GAO to conduct an assessment of the direct and indirect costs of homeporting a carrier in Mayport The House committee also directed the Navy to report on the cost and benefits For background see “Army Combat Force Modernization Programs ” p 21 For appropriations action see “Ground Combat Vehicles Appropriations ” p 53 78 House Armed Services Committee press release “H R 6523 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 ” 79 For background see “Military Construction ” pp 29-30 For appropriations action see CRS Report R41345 Military Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies FY2011 Appropriations by Daniel H Else Christine Scott and Sidath Viranga Panangala 77 Congressional Research Service 42 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations of various other options for using the Mayport naval facilities including the stationing of nonnuclear powered ships H R 6523 authorized $176 0 billion of the $566 2 billion requested for military construction on Guam with most of the reduction coming from the $426 9 million directly related to the planned redeployment to Guam of Marine Corps units currently stationed in the Japanese Prefecture of Okinawa Like the Senate committee-reported version the final bill approved funds requested to improve access roads and wharves for Guam’s harbor but denied funding to begin construction on the island of a Marine base and facilities for Marine aviation squadrons In addition the final version of the bill did not authorize $70 0 million requested to replace Guam’s military hospital It did authorize as requested $50 3 million for Air Force projects related to DOD's global repositioning of forces and $19 0 million for construction of a new National Guard Readiness Center The final version of the bill did not include a House provision that would have authorized the Secretary of Defense to assist the Government of Guam in meeting the costs of providing increased municipal services and facilities required as a result of the realignment by transferring up to $500 million of appropriated DOD operation and maintenance funds to any existing federal program available to Guam H R 6523 also requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the military facilities needed to support force redeployment and a report by the Secretary of the Interior assessing the civil infrastructure improvements that will be needed to serve both the permanent increase in population because of the re-stationed combat forces and the temporary surge caused by construction workers preparing the new facilities Guantanamo Bay Detainee Issues As the House-passed version of the bill would have done H R 6523 bars the use of funds authorized by the bill to transfer to or release into U S territory any detainee currently held in the U S facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba It also would prohibit the use of DOD funds to transfer any Guantanamo Bay detainee to the custody of any foreign government unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that certain conditions are met that are intended to minimize the risk that the detainee would be released Unlike the House-passed and Senate committee-approved versions of the bill the final version waives those two restrictions in cases in which a competent court or military tribunal orders a detainee’s transfer H R 6523 also bars the use of funds authorized by the bill to build or modify at any other location facilities to house detainees currently at Guantanamo Bay It requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the costs benefits and risks of transferring Guantanamo detainees to any alternative site Security Assistance and the State Department Authorization 80 For the so-called “Global Train and Equip” program also known as the “Section 1206 program ” the Administration’s DOD appropriations request for FY2011 was $489 5 million This would have required an amendment to existing law which limits to $350 million the annual appropriation for the Section 1206 program 80 For background see “State Department Role in Security Assistance” pp 31-ff Congressional Research Service 43 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations The House-passed version of the authorization bill would have 1 authorized the requested appropriation 2 increased the Section 1206 funding ceiling to $500 million and 3 extended authorization for the program which currently is set to expire at the end of FY2011 through FY2012 The House bill also would have required DOD to transfer $75 million to the Secretary of State to build the counterterrorism forces of the Yemeni Ministry of Interior provided the Secretary of State can certify by July 31 2011 that the State Department is able to effectively provide that assistance The bill provided that if the Secretary of State could not issue the certification 81 the Secretary of Defense would have discretion to provide the funds for the Yemen project subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State and other Section 1206 procedures In its report on the bill the House Armed Services Committee signaled the importance it attached to this funding by recognizing Yemen as a “strategic partner” in combating Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula This provision would have expanded the scope of the Section 1206 program which under existing law can be spent only to support national military forces as opposed to police agencies oriented toward domestic law enforcement The Senate committee-reported bill would not have increased the $350 million cap on Section 1206 funding and would have cut the Administration’s request to that level However the committee bill also would have created a separate stand-alone authority for the Secretary of Defense with the concurrence of the Secretary of State to provide up to $75 million from FY2011 operations and maintenance funds in assistance including equipment supplies and training to the Yemen Ministry of the Interior counterterrorism unit “to conduct counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and its affiliates ” The final version of the authorization bill does not increase the $350 million ceiling on Section 1206 funding as the Administration requested However it does authorize the additional $75 million for Yemeni Interior Ministry units that was approved by the Senate committee The enacted version of the authorization bill also includes a provision similar to one requested by the Administration and included in the Senate committee bill that authorizes the Secretary of Defense to use up to $150 million of Army funds to enable the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan to assist the commander of the United States Central Command in developing a link between United States military operations in Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom and the economic elements of United States national power in order to reduce violence enhance stability and restore economic normalcy in Afghanistan through strategic business and economic activities The specific intent of the projects would be to facilitate private investment industrial development banking and financial system development agricultural diversification and revitalization and energy development in and with respect to Afghanistan Because the State Department’s 10th annual Trafficking in Persons Report released June 14 2010 identifies Yemen as a country that recruits and uses children in governmental armed forces Section 1206 funding to Yemen may be cut for FY2011 under provisions of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 P L 110-457 Title IV absent a presidential national interest waiver applicable exception or a reinstatement of assistance U S Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report 10th Edition June 2010 p 10 http www state gov documents organization 1429 81 Congressional Research Service 44 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Cybersecurity Authorization 82 As enacted H R 6523 includes several provisions related to cybersecurity that are based on provisions of the Senate committee-approved bill modified in some cases Among other things final version of the bill     directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the cyber warfare policy of DoD including legal strategy and doctrinal issues requires DOD to develop a tailored acquisition process for cyberspace requires the Secretary of Defense to implement a policy of continuously monitoring DOD computer networks to improve security and Federal Information Security Management Act FISMA compliance and reporting and requires annual reports to Congress on the nature of damages caused by cyber attacks as well as net assessments of the cyberwar capabilities of the U S and potential adversaries in order to determine whether the U S is making progress in improving cybersecurity The final version of the authorization bill did not include a House provision83 that would have created a National Office for Cyberspace with government-wide responsibility for coordinating agencies’ information security programs and security-related requirements for federal information technology investments The director of the new office whose appointment would have required Senate confirmation would have been a member of the National Security Council FY2011 Congressional Budget Ceilings “302b Allocations” The House and Senate did not agree on a FY2011 budget resolution that would have set a ceiling on overall discretionary spending that the two Appropriations Committees could divide among their subcommittees via so-called “302 b allocations” to function as ceilings on each of the 12 annual appropriations bills In the absence of a budget resolution both committees operated under spending caps that were adopted through other procedures On July 1 2010 the House adopted a one-year cap on discretionary spending H Res 1493 84 which the House Appropriations Committee used as the basis for setting 302 b allocations for each of its subcommittees H Rept 111-565 For the Defense Subcommittee the allocation was $523 9 billion which is $7 billion less than the Administration requested for DOD base budget programs within the jurisdiction of that subcommittee 85 The Senate Budget Committee approved a FY2011 budget resolution S Con Res 60 However the resolution never was considered by the Senate nor did the Senate adopt any overall ceiling on FY2011 discretionary spending as the House had done On July 15 2010 the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted “discretionary guidance” for the amount that could be For background see “US CYBERCOM” pp 30-31 This provision was added to the House bill as a floor amendment sponsored by Representatives Diane E Watson and Jim Langevin which was based on provisions of H R 4900 and H R 5247 The amendment was incorporated into one of several so-called en bloc amendments each of which incorporated several non-controversial amendments and all of which were agreed to by voice vote 84 Such informal substitutes for a budget resolution are referred to as “deeming” resolutions 85This excludes the President’s $18 7 billion request for military construction which is overseen by the Subcommittee on Military Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies That subcommittee’s 302 b allocation is $1 million more than the $76 0 billion which according to CBO would be the cost of the President’s request for all the discretionary programs funded by that agency The 302 b allocation does not identify a the DOD share of that total 82 83 Congressional Research Service 45 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations appropriated by each of its subcommittees For the Defense Subcommittee the ceiling was $522 8 billion which is $8 1 billion less than the President’s request See Table 12 Table 12 FY2011 Appropriations Subcommittee Discretionary Spending Ceilings “302 b Allocations” amounts in millions of dollars President’s Budget CBO reestimate First House Subcommittee Allocation Second House Subcommittee Allocation Senate Subcommittee Allocations 530 870 523 870 517 714 522 791 change from budget n a -7 000 13 156 -8 079 Homeland Security 43 656 43 656 42 517 43 536 change from budget n a 0 1 139 0 75 997 75 998 74 682 75 996 n a 1 -1 315 -1 56 656 53 983 46 953 54 056 n a -2 673 -9 703 -2 600 707 159 697 487 681 866 696 479 n a -9 672 -25 293 -10 680 Appropriations Subcommittees Defense Military Construction VA change from budget State Department Foreign Ops change from budget Total ‘Security’ Programs change from budget Source Data for the CBO re-estimate of the President’s budget is from House Appropriations Committee press release “Appropriations Committee Approves 302 b Allocations ” July 20 2010 Data for the House subcommittee allocations are from House Appropriations Committee “Report on the Suballocation of Budget Allocations for Fiscal Year 2011 ” H Rept 111-565 July 26 2010 Data for the Senate committee are Senate Appropriations Committee press release “FY2011 Subcommittee Spending Guidance ” July 15 2010 FY2011 Defense Appropriations Bill On July 27 2010 the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee approved for consideration by the full Appropriations Committee a FY2011 DOD Appropriations bill unnumbered that would have provided a total of $671 0 billion For the base budget the bill would appropriate $513 3 billion a reduction of $7 0 billion from the President’s request as required by the Defense Subcommittee’s 302 b allocation For war costs the subcommittee bill would have provided $157 7 billion a reduction of $253 million from the request The subcommittee did not make public the text of the bill nor the lengthy explanatory report detailing its specific recommendations Other than a summary table listing the amount the bill would provide for each appropriations account and a list of Member earmarks as required by House rules the only information about the substance of the bill was provided in a statement by then subcommittee Chairman Representative Norm Dicks 86 On September 16 2010 the Senate Appropriations Committee approved by a vote of 18-12 a FY2011 DOD Appropriations bill S 3800 that would have provided a total of $669 9 billion That total included $512 2 billion for the base budget and $157 7 billion for war costs This 86 Opening Statement of Chairman Norm Dicks on the FY2011 Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Markup July 27 2010 accessed September 16 2010 at http appropriations house gov images stories pdf def Norm_Dicks_Opening_Statement 7 27 10 pdf Congressional Research Service 46 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations would have amounted to a reduction of $8 10 billion to the President’s base budget request and a reduction of $254 million to the request for war costs Since an FY2011 DOD appropriations bill had not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year on October 1 2010 DOD like most other federal agencies was funded through mid-April 2011 by a series of short-term continuing resolutions On February 19 2011 the House passed by a vote of 235-189 a bill H R 1 that would have funded federal agencies through the balance of FY2011 and which incorporated a fully detailed defense appropriations bill that would have provided $505 2 billion in discretionary budget authority for base budget programs covered by the annual defense bill The Senate debated H R 1 under an agreement that required 60 votes for the approval of any amendment or for passage of the bill The bill was laid aside on March 9 2011 after a motion to close debate was rejected by a vote of 44-56 During the debate preceding that vote the Senate had rejected by a vote of 42-58 an alternative funding measure offered as an amendment by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye For base budget programs funded by the annual defense appropriations bill the Inouye amendment would have provided $503 1 billion On April 15 2011 the President signed an omnibus funding bill for the balance of FY2011 H R 1473 P L 112-10 which incorporated a fully detailed FY2011 DOD appropriations bill In its detailed provisions for funding major programs the bill was very similar to the corresponding provisions of the Inouye amendment to H R 1 As enacted H R 1473 provided a total of $502 4 billion for the base budget and a total of $677 7 billion for all DOD funding including military construction and war costs 87 This amounted to a reduction of $20 1 billion from the total the President had requested for the FY2011 DOD appropriations bill and for DOD’s military construction budget which is funded in a separate appropriations bill that also pays for the Department of Veterans Affairs and certain other agencies The section of H R 1473 that corresponded to a regular annual DOD appropriations bill incorporated $4 4 billion worth of reductions to the President’s request that were applied to broad categories of spending rather than to specific programs including     $2 0 billion rescinded from DOD funds appropriated for prior fiscal years 88 A total of $1 5 billion cut proportionately from every project and program funded by the bill’s accounts for Operations and Maintenance Procurement and Research and Development $723 million from the total appropriated for civilian pay and $125 million from the total appropriated for federally funded research and development corporations FFRDCs such as RAND 87 In addition to the amounts appropriated for DOD in this bill the total amount appropriated for DOD in FY2011 included $10 9 billion for the accrual payments that fund the so-called “Tricare for Life” program which extends coverage under the military health care program to Medicare-eligible military retirees and their dependents The annual Tricare for Life accrual payment based on actuarial calculations is made on the basis of a permanent appropriation rather than as an element of the annual appropriations bill For FY2011 the total appropriated for DOD—including the Tricare for Life accrual payment was $688 6 billion 88 Funds appropriated in prior years that are rescinded are used to partly offset the cost of newly appropriated programs Thus they reduce the amount of the new budget authority required by the bill Congressional Research Service 47 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations The hundreds of cuts to the President’s DOD budget made by H R 1473 were partly offset by some 226 instances in which the bill added funds to the request This is about one-eighth the number of additions Congress has made to DOD budget requests for the past few years According to a database of congressional earmarks in appropriations bills which is maintained by the Office of Management and Budget there were 2 085 earmarks in the defense appropriations bill for FY2008 2 084 in the bill for FY2009 and 1 758 in the FY2010 bill 89 Among the larger amounts the bill added to the budget request are     $495 0 million for nine F A-18E F Navy strike fighters $1 38 billion for equipment for the National Guard and reserve components $661 7 million for various medical research programs and $293 2 million for Israeli missile defense systems The bill also added to the budget $523 0 million to fund innovative research and procurement projects an initiative which the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee had included in its still-born draft bill The bill did not add funds to continue development of an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Table 13 FY2011 Department of Defense Appropriations unnumbered House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee draft bill S 3800 H R 1473 Amounts in millions of dollars Administration request Bill Title House subcommittee recommendation unnumbered Senate Committee reported S 3800 H R 1473 as enacted P L 112-10 Base Budget Military Personnel 127 669 126 619 127 153 126 740 Operation and Maintenance 167 879 165 188 166 832 163 545 Procurement 111 190 106 331 104 765 101 558 Research and Development 76 131 76 681 76 194 74 576 Revolving and Management Funds 2 379 2 929 2 472 2 909 Other DOD Programs 34 033 34 645 34 500 34 313 Related Agencies 999 888 1 014 942 General Provisions 11 -10 -1 240 -2 199 520 290 513 271 512 191 502 385 Subtotal Base Budget Overseas Contingency Operations OCO Military Personnel 15 132 15 967 16 040 16 251 Operation and Maintenance 115 205 111 062 112 562 110 127 Procurement 21 362 24 190 23 061 25 194 See OMB “FY2010 Earmarks by Appropriations Subcommittee” accessed at http earmarks omb gov earmarkspublic 2010-appropriations-by-spendcom summary html 89 Congressional Research Service 48 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Administration request House subcommittee recommendation unnumbered Senate Committee reported S 3800 H R 1473 as enacted P L 112-10 Research and Development 635 863 874 955 Revolving and Management Funds 485 485 485 5 116 5 115 4 657 4 667 Subtotal OCO 157 935 157 682 157 681 157 680 Grand Total FY2011 DOD Appropriations 678 225 670 953 669 872 660 065 Bill Title Other DOD Programs 485 Source House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee press release “2011 Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Bill Summary Table accessed September 8 2010 at http approprations house gov images stories pdf def FY11_defense_summary 7 28 10 pdf Senate Appropriations Committee S Rept 111-295 “Report to accompany S 3800 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill 2011 September 16 2011 and Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011 Congressional Record daily edition vol 157 number 55 April 14 2011 pp H2697-H2788 Following is an analysis of selected highlights of H R 1473 Because the bill was not accompanied by an explanatory statement the only indication of intent of the many changes to the budget request is the brief descriptions—typically only a few words in length—included in the funding tables posted by the House Rules Committee 90 Military Personnel and Medical Care Issues Appropriations 91 The bill funded the 1 4% military pay raise included in the budget and authorized by the companion FY2011 national defense authorization act It added to the requested amount $162 million for Military Career Advancement Accounts MyCAA a tuition assistance program for the spouses of military personnel Launched during 2009 the program was suspended for a time early in 2010 after many more spouses enrolled than had been anticipated The Senate committee bill would add $447 0 million to the $32 3 billion requested for the Defense Health Program DHP That net increase is the result of increases and reductions that included additions totaling 661 7 million research and development programs the largest of which are aimed at breast cancer $150 million psychological health and traumatic brain injury $100 million and prostate cancer $80 million Missile Defense and Strategic Strike Appropriations The bill cut $425 0 million from the $858 9 million requested for the deployment of Theater High Altitude Air Defense THAAD missiles which are land-based weapons also intended to intercept short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles Planned THAAD production has been delayed pending additional tests The bill also would add to the budget $205 million to accelerate production of the Israeli Iron Dome system intended to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells with small guided 90 http www rules house gov Legislation legislationDetails aspx NewsID 244 For background see “Military Personnel” pp 16 ff For authorization action see “Military Personnel Issues Authorization ” pp 34-35 91 Congressional Research Service 49 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations missiles Though not included in the original DOD budget request for FY2011 President Obama had asked Congress in May 2010 to approve the funds for Iron Dome 92 For additional details on missile defense funding in H R 1473 see Table A-3 in the Appendix Shipbuilding Appropriations 93 The bill provided $15 4 billion of the $15 7 billion requested for Navy shipbuilding making minor reductions in several of the requested amounts For additional details on funds for shipbuilding provided by H R 1473 see Table A-9 in the Appendix Aircraft Appropriations 94 The most substantial change made by the bill to the budget request for a single program was its reduction of $1 38 billion to the $11 26 billion requested for continued development and production of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters The bill would fund purchase of 35 of the 43 planes requested The bill also cut $325 0 million from the $863 9 million requested to develop for production one of two competing types of mid-air refueling tanker intended to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135 tankers A delay in choosing between the two bidders until March 2011—nearly halfway through FY2011—made it unlikely that the winning firm could spend the budgeted amount during that year For additional details on funds for aircraft provided by H R 1473 see Table A-5 for helicopters and Table A-10 for other aircraft in the Appendix Ground Combat Vehicles Appropriations 95 The bill denied the $431 8 million requested to continue development of the Non-Line of Sight Missile—a precision-guided weapon planned for use by Army units and the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships The Army had announced on May 13 2010 that it was cancelling the program The bill also cut $473 3 million from the $934 4 million requested by the Administration for the Ground Combat Vehicle program which is to develop a replacement for the Army’s Bradley armored troop carrier On August 25 2010 the Army cancelled the ongoing competition to design the new vehicle and announced it was revising the performance specifications the GCV would have to meet The Army restarted the GCV competition on November 30 2010 The White House Office of the Press Secretary “Advancing Our Interests Actions In Support of the President’s National Security Strategy May 27 2010 accessed at http www whitehouse gov the-press-office advancing-ourinterests-actions-support-presidents-national-security-strategy 93 For background see “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans” pp 23 ff For authorization action see “Shipbuilding Authorization ” pp 41-42 94 For background see “Aircraft Programs” pp 26 ff For authorization action see “Aircraft Authorization ” pp 4244 95 For background see “Army Combat Force Modernization Programs” p 22-23 For authorization action see “Ground Combat Vehicle and Brigade Combat Team Modernization Authorization ” pp 44-45 92 Congressional Research Service 50 Appendix Selected Program Summary Tables Table A-1 FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act by account amounts in thousands of dollars FY2011 House bill amount Request H R 5136 change percent change Senate bill amount change S 3454 percent change Enacted bill H R 6523 amount change percent change Department of Defense Authorizations—Base Bill Division A Department of Defense Authorization Title I—PROCUREMENT Aircraft Procurement Army 5 976 867 5 986 361 9 494 0 16% 5 961 167 -15 700 -0 26% 5 908 384 -68 483 -1 15% Missile Procurement Army 1 887 437 1 631 463 -255 974 -13 56% 1 670 463 -216 974 -11 50% 1 670 463 -216 974 -11 50% Weapons Tracked Combat Vehicles Army 1 723 561 1 616 245 -107 316 -6 23% 1 624 284 -99 277 -5 76% 1 656 263 -67 298 -3 90% Procurement of Ammunition Army 1 979 414 1 946 948 -32 466 -1 64% 1 950 814 -28 600 -1 44% 1 953 194 -26 220 -1 32% Other Procurement Army 9 765 808 9 398 728 -367 080 -3 76% 9 929 990 164 182 1 68% 9 758 965 -6 843 -0 07% Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 215 868 0 -215 868 -215 868 -100 00% 368 526 1 99% -1 530 -0 05% Aircraft Procurement Navy 18 508 613 19 132 613 Weapons Procurement Navy 3 359 794 Shipbuilding Conversion Navy 15 724 520 15 724 520 Procurement of Ammunition Navy Marine Corps 3 350 894 624 000 -8 900 -100 00% 0 3 37% 19 131 161 -0 26% 3 400 794 -215 868 -100 00% 0 622 548 3 36% 18 877 139 41 000 1 22% 3 358 264 0 0 00% 15 724 520 0 0% 0 0% 15 724 520 0 00% 817 991 0 00% 817 991 817 991 0 0 00% 817 991 0 Other Procurement Navy 6 450 208 6 450 208 0 0 00% 6 471 808 21 600 0 33% 6 381 815 -68 393 -1 06% Procurement Marine Corps 1 344 044 1 379 044 35 000 2 60% 1 344 044 0 0 00% 1 296 838 -47 206 -3 51% Aircraft Procurement Air Force 15 366 508 15 355 908 -10 600 -0 07% 15 340 308 -0 17% 14 668 408 -698 100 -4 54% 5 000 0 75% Procurement of Ammunition Air Force CRS-51 667 420 672 420 5 000 0 75% 5 470 964 -26 200 4 803 544 719 72% 672 420 FY2011 House bill amount Request H R 5136 change Missile Procurement Air Force 5 463 272 5 470 772 Other Procurement Air Force 17 845 380 17 911 730 Procurement Defense-Wide Subtotal PROCUREMENT 4 280 368 4 399 768 119 400 111 377 073 111 245 613 -131 460 Title II—RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT TEST EVALUATION RDT E Army 10 333 392 10 316 754 RDT E Navy 17 693 496 17 978 646 RDT E Air Force 27 247 302 27 269 902 RDT E Defense-Wide 20 661 600 20 713 096 Operational Test Evaluation Defense 194 910 194 910 Subtotal RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT TEST EVALUATION 76 130 700 76 473 308 Title III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE O M Army 33 971 965 O M Navy 38 134 308 O M Marine Corps 5 590 340 O M Air Force 36 844 512 O M Defense-wide 30 583 896 O M Army Reserve 2 879 077 O M Navy Reserve 1 367 764 O M Marine Corps Reserve 285 234 O M Air Force Reserve 3 301 035 O M Army National Guard 6 572 704 O M Air National Guard 5 941 143 US Court Of Appeals For The Armed Forces 14 068 Overseas Humanitarian Disaster And Civic Aid 108 032 CooperativeThreat Reduction 522 512 Defense Acquisition Development Workforce Fund 217 561 Envir Rest Army 444 581 Envir Rest Navy 304 867 Envir Reset Air Force 502 653 Envir Rest Defense 10 744 Envir Rest Formerly Used Sites 276 546 Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund 5 000 CRS-52 34 232 221 37 976 443 5 568 340 36 684 588 30 200 596 2 942 077 1 374 764 287 234 3 311 827 6 628 525 5 980 139 7 500 66 350 percent change 0 14% Senate bill amount change S 3454 667 420 -4 795 852 percent change Enacted bill H R 6523 -87 78% 5 444 464 amount change percent change -18 808 -0 34% 0 37% 17 876 380 31 000 0 17% 17 845 342 -38 0 00% 2 79% 4 368 768 -0 12% 111 750 876 88 400 373 803 2 07% 4 398 168 0 34% 110 432 638 117 800 -944 435 2 75% -0 85% -16 638 285 150 22 600 51 496 0 -0 16% 10 573 545 1 61% 17 829 785 0 08% 27 329 802 0 25% 20 870 500 0 00% 194 910 240 153 136 289 82 500 208 900 0 2 32% 10 093 704 0 77% 17 881 008 0 30% 27 319 627 1 01% 21 097 666 0 00% 194 910 -239 688 187 512 72 325 436 066 -2 32% 1 06% 0 27% 2 11% 0 00% 342 608 0 45% 76 798 542 667 842 0 88% 76 586 915 456 215 0 60% 260 256 -157 865 -22 000 -159 924 -383 300 63 000 7 000 2 000 10 792 55 821 38 996 0 77% 33 971 965 -0 41% 38 243 308 -0 39% 5 590 340 -0 43% 36 977 824 -1 25% 30 482 896 2 19% 2 879 077 0 51% 1 367 764 0 70% 285 234 0 33% 3 403 827 0 85% 6 572 704 0 66% 6 042 239 0 109 000 0 133 312 -101 000 0 0 0 102 792 0 101 096 -21 996 -21 277 -0 06% -0 07% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 3 11% 0 75% 1 70% 0 00% 33 921 165 0 29% 38 232 943 0 00% 5 590 340 0 36% 36 822 516 -0 33% 30 562 619 0 00% 2 879 077 0 00% 1 367 764 0 00% 285 234 3 11% 3 403 827 0 00% 6 621 704 1 70% 6 042 239 102 792 49 000 101 096 14 068 0 0 00% 14 068 0 0 00% 14 068 0 00% 108 032 522 512 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 108 032 522 512 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 108 032 522 512 0 00% 0 00% 229 561 444 581 304 867 502 653 10 744 12 000 0 0 0 0 5 52% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 217 561 444 581 304 867 502 653 10 744 0 0 0 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 217 561 444 581 304 867 502 653 10 744 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 296 546 20 000 7 23% 276 546 0 0 00% 296 546 20 000 7 23% 0 -5 000 -100 00% 5 000 0 0 00% 0 -5 000 -100 00% FY2011 House bill amount Request H R 5136 change Subtotal OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 167 878 542 167 620 318 -258 224 Title IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 138 540 700 138 540 700 Title XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS Defense Working Capital Funds Working Capital Fund Defense Commissary Agency National Defense Sealift Fund Defense Coalition Support Fund Defense Health Program Chemical Agents Munitions Destruction Defense Drug Interdiction Counter-Drug Activities Defense Office of the Inspector General Subtotal OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS SUBTOTAL Division A Department of Defense Authorizations 160 965 160 965 1 273 571 1 273 571 934 866 934 866 10 000 0 30 935 111 30 991 952 1 467 307 1 467 307 1 131 351 1 131 351 283 354 283 354 36 196 525 36 243 366 530 123 540 530 123 305 percent change Senate bill amount change S 3454 percent change Enacted bill H R 6523 -0 15% 168 223 742 345 200 0 21% 168 150 992 0 0 00% 138 540 700 0 0 00% 138 540 700 0 0 00% 0 0 00% 0 0 -10 000 56 841 0 0 0 46 841 -235 160 965 0 00% 1 273 571 0 00% 934 866 -100 00% 0 0 18% 30 957 111 0 00% 1 467 307 0 00% 1 153 851 0 00% 317 154 0 13% 36 264 825 0 0 -10 000 22 000 0 22 500 33 800 68 300 0 00% 531 578 685 1 455 145 39 468 0 00% 1 273 571 0 00% 934 866 -100 00% 0 0 07% 30 959 611 amount change 272 450 0 16% 0 00% -121 497 -75 48% -10 000 24 500 0 00% 0 00% -100 00% 0 08% 0 00% 1 467 307 1 99% 1 160 851 11 93% 317 154 0 19% 36 152 828 percent change 0 00% 29 500 33 800 -43 697 2 61% 11 93% -0 12% -259 467 -0 05% -6 91% 3 954 998 -4 35% 3 516 173 5 47% 1 293 295 2 71% 3 048 062 0 00% 124 971 0 00% 258 884 10 23% 873 664 10 53% 318 175 0 00% 61 557 89 89% 194 986 0 00% 7 832 -123 800 -362 931 -18 090 -70 000 -3 04% -9 36% -1 38% -2 24% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 10 17% 0 00% -0 09% 13 652 597 -556 821 0 27% 529 864 073 Division B Military Construction Authorization MILITARY CONSTRUCTION Mil Con Army Mil Con Navy and Marine Corps Mil Con Air Force Mil Con Defense-Wide Chem Demil Construction Security Investment Program Mil Con Army National Guard Mil Con Army Reserve Mil Con Navy Reserve Mil Con Air National Guard Mil Con Air Force Reserve Subtotal MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FAMILY HOUSING Fam Housing Constr Army Family Housing O M Army CRS-53 4 078 798 3 879 104 1 311 385 3 118 062 124 971 258 884 873 664 318 175 61 557 176 986 7 832 4 198 174 3 941 639 1 315 773 2 999 580 124 971 258 884 1 019 902 358 331 91 557 292 371 47 332 14 209 418 14 648 514 92 369 518 140 92 369 518 140 119 376 62 535 4 388 -118 482 0 0 146 238 40 156 30 000 115 385 39 500 439 096 0 0 2 93% 3 796 798 1 61% 3 710 420 0 33% 1 383 125 -3 80% 3 202 644 0 00% 124 971 0 00% 258 884 16 74% 963 030 12 62% 351 675 48 74% 61 557 65 19% 336 086 504 34% 7 832 3 09% 14 197 022 0 00% 0 00% 92 369 518 140 -282 000 -168 684 71 740 84 582 0 0 89 366 33 500 0 159 100 0 -12 396 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 92 369 518 140 18 000 -3 92% 0 00% 0 00% FY2011 House bill amount Request H R 5136 change Fam Housing Constr Navy and Marine Corps Family Housing O M Navy and Marine Corps Fam Housing Constr Air Force Family Housing O M Air Force Family Housing O M Defense-Wide Homeowners Assistance Fund Fam Housing Improvement Fund Subtotal FAMILY HOUSING BRAC BRAC 1990 BRAC 2005 Subtotal BRAC percent change Senate bill amount change S 3454 Enacted bill H R 6523 amount change percent change 186 444 186 444 0 0 00% 186 444 0 0 00% 186 444 0 00% 366 346 78 025 513 792 366 346 78 025 513 792 0 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 366 346 78 025 513 792 0 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 366 346 78 025 513 792 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 50 464 16 515 1 096 1 823 191 50 464 16 515 1 096 1 823 191 0 0 0 0 0 00% 50 464 0 00% 16 515 0 00% 1 096 0 00% 1 823 191 0 0 0 0 0 00% 50 464 0 00% 16 515 0 00% 1 096 0 00% 1 823 191 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 360 474 2 354 285 2 714 759 360 474 2 354 285 2 714 759 0 0 0 0 00% 360 474 0 00% 2 354 285 0 00% 2 714 759 0 0 0 0 00% 360 474 0 00% 2 354 285 0 00% 2 714 759 -441 096 -441 096 317 154 0 0 317 154 Undistributed Adjustments Prior Year Savings General Reduction FY10 Title XX Subtotal MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FAMILY HOUSING BRAC percent change 18 747 368 18 745 368 SUBTOTAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 051 548 870 908 548 868 673 -2 000 -2 235 -0 01% 18 734 972 -12 396 0 00% 550 313 657 1 442 749 -0 07% 18 190 547 0 26% 548 054 620 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% -556 821 -2 97% -816 288 -0 15% Department of Energy Authorization Division C Energy Security and Assurance Weapons Activities Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Naval Reactors Office of the Administrator Defense Environmental Cleanup Other Defense Activities 6 188 7 008 835 2 687 167 1 070 486 448 267 5 588 039 878 209 TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 17 687 191 17 687 191 Independent Federal Agency Authorization CRS-54 6 188 7 008 835 2 687 167 1 070 486 448 267 5 588 039 878 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00% 0 0 00% 7 015 023 0 00% 2 687 167 0 00% 1 070 486 0 00% 448 267 0 00% 5 588 039 0 00% 878 209 0 0 00% 17 687 191 -6 188 6 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100 00% 6 188 0 09% 7 028 835 0 00% 2 667 167 0 00% 1 070 486 0 00% 448 267 0 00% 5 588 039 0 00% 878 209 0 00% 17 687 191 20 000 -20 000 0 00% 0 29% -0 74% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% FY2011 House bill amount Request H R 5136 change Subtotal DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 28 640 28 640 SUBTOTAL ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS 053 17 715 831 17 715 831 TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE 050 -- BASE BILL 566 586 739 566 584 504 percent change Senate bill amount change S 3454 0 0 00% 0 0 00% 17 720 831 -2 235 33 640 5 000 5 000 0 00% 568 034 488 1 447 749 percent change 17 46% Enacted bill H R 6523 amount change 28 640 0 00% 0 03% 17 715 831 0 26% 565 891 948 percent change 0 00% -694 791 -0 12% Department of Defense Authorizations—Overseas Contingency Operations Title XV Division A Department of Defense Authorization Title XV—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS OCO PROCUREMENT Aircraft Procurement Army Missile Procurement Army Weapons Tracked Combat Vehicles Army Procurement of Ammunition Army Other Procurement Army Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund Aircraft Procurement Navy Weapons Procurement Navy Procurement of Ammunition Navy Marine Corps Other Procurement Navy Procurement Marine Corps Aircraft Procurement Air Force Procurement of Ammuniction Air Force Missile Procurement Air Force Other Procurement Air Force Procurement Defense-Wide Mine Resistant Ambush Protection Veh Fund National Guard and Reserve Equipment Subtotal PROCUREMENT OCO RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT TEST EVALUATION RDT E Army RDT E Navy CRS-55 1 373 803 343 828 687 500 702 591 5 827 274 1 373 803 343 828 687 500 652 491 5 865 446 0 0 0 -50 100 38 172 0 00% 1 373 803 0 00% 343 828 0 00% 687 500 -7 13% 652 491 0 66% 5 786 274 0 0 0 -50 100 -41 000 0 00% 1 373 803 0 00% 343 828 0 00% 687 500 -7 13% 384 441 -0 70% 5 827 274 3 250 000 420 358 93 425 3 464 368 843 358 93 425 214 368 423 000 0 6 60% 3 465 868 100 63% 420 358 0 00% 93 425 215 868 0 0 6 64% 3 465 868 0 00% 420 358 0 00% 93 425 565 084 0 480 735 0 1 854 243 76 000 1 096 520 -265 900 292 959 0 56 621 0 3 087 481 0 1 376 046 501 500 3 415 000 0 700 000 700 000 24 611 868 26 248 908 1 637 040 0 00% 565 084 0 00% 480 735 4 27% 1 778 243 -19 52% 1 157 520 0 00% 292 959 0 00% 56 621 0 00% 3 087 481 57 34% 874 546 0 00% 3 415 000 0 0 0 -204 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 00% 565 084 0 00% 480 735 0 00% 1 705 069 -15 04% 1 096 520 0 00% 292 959 0 00% 56 621 0 00% 2 992 681 0 00% 844 546 0 00% 3 415 000 700 000 -0 33% 24 745 712 565 084 480 735 1 778 243 1 362 420 292 959 56 621 3 087 481 874 546 3 415 000 150 906 60 401 112 734 60 401 -38 172 0 6 65% 24 531 736 -25 30% 0 00% 150 906 60 401 -80 132 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 150 906 60 401 -318 150 215 868 -73 174 -265 900 -94 800 -30 000 700 000 133 844 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% -45 28% 0 00% 6 64% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% -4 11% -19 52% 0 00% 0 00% -3 07% -3 43% 0 00% 0 54% 0 00% 0 00% FY2011 House bill amount Request H R 5136 change RDT E Air Force RDT E Defense-Wide Subtotal RDT E OCO 266 241 157 240 634 788 266 241 657 240 1 096 616 0 500 000 461 828 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Operation and Maintenance Army 62 602 618 62 202 618 -400 000 Operation and Maintenance Navy 8 946 634 8 946 634 0 Operation and Maintenance Marine Corps 4 136 522 4 136 522 0 Operation and Maintenance Air Force 13 487 283 13 487 283 0 Operation and Maintenance Defense-wide 9 426 358 9 426 358 0 Operation and Maintenance Army Reserve 286 950 286 950 0 Operation and Maintenance Navy Reserve 93 559 93 559 0 Operation and Maintenance Marine Corps Reserve 29 685 29 685 0 Operation and Maintenance Air Force Reserve 129 607 129 607 0 Operation and Maintenance Army National Guard 544 349 544 349 0 Operation and Maintenance Air National Guard 350 823 350 823 0 Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 11 619 283 10 964 983 -654 300 Iraq Security Forces Fund 2 000 000 2 000 000 0 Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund 1 551 781 506 781 -1 045 000 percent change 0 00% 317 99% 72 75% Senate bill amount change S 3454 266 241 182 740 660 288 -0 64% 62 202 618 0 00% 8 946 634 0 00% 4 136 522 0 00% 13 487 283 0 00% 9 426 358 0 00% 286 950 0 00% 93 559 0 25 500 25 500 -400 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enacted bill H R 6523 0 00% 266 241 16 22% 661 240 4 02% 1 138 788 -0 64% 63 202 618 0 00% 8 692 173 0 00% 4 136 522 0 00% 13 487 283 0 00% 9 436 358 0 00% 286 950 0 00% 93 559 amount change 504 000 504 000 600 000 -254 461 10 000 percent change 0 00% 320 53% 79 40% 0 96% -2 84% 0 00% 0 00% 0 11% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 29 685 0 0 00% 29 685 0 00% 0 00% 129 607 0 0 00% 129 607 0 00% 0 00% 544 349 0 0 00% 544 349 0 00% 0 00% 350 823 0 -5 63% 11 619 283 0 0 00% 1 000 000 -1 000 000 -67 34% 1 306 781 -245 000 Subtotal OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OCO 115 205 452 113 106 152 -2 099 300 MILITARY PERSONNEL OCO 15 275 502 15 275 502 0 0 00% 15 275 502 485 384 1 398 092 485 384 1 398 092 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 485 384 10 529 0 -1 387 563 457 110 10 529 457 110 10 529 0 0 0 00% 1 398 092 0 00% 457 110 940 982 446 581 2 351 115 2 351 115 0 0 00% 2 351 115 0 929 996 929 996 0 0 00% 1 028 176 98 180 OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS Defense Working Capital Funds Defense Health Program Drug Interdiction Counter-Drug Activities Defense Office of the Inspector General Subtotal OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS OCO percent change -1 82% 113 560 452 -1 645 000 0 0 00% 350 823 0 00% 11 619 283 -50 00% 1 500 000 -15 79% 506 781 -1 43% 114 015 991 -500 000 0 00% 0 00% -25 00% -1 045 000 -67 34% -1 189 461 -1 03% 0 00% 15 275 502 0 00% 0 00% 485 384 -99 25% 1 398 092 205 85% 4241 44% 0 00% 0 00% 457 110 10 529 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 2 351 115 0 00% Division B Military Construction Authorization MILITARY CONSTRUCTION Mil Con Army CRS-56 10 56% 981 346 51 350 5 52% FY2011 House bill amount Request H R 5136 change percent change Senate bill amount change S 3454 Mil Con Air Force Mil Con Defense-Wide Subtotal MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OCO 280 506 46 500 280 506 46 500 0 0 0 00% 0 00% 193 766 46 500 -86 740 0 1 257 002 1 257 002 0 0 00% 1 268 442 11 440 TOTAL OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 161 686 842 159 335 295 -2 351 547 -1 45% 157 647 535 -4 039 307 TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 710 557 750 708 203 968 -2 353 782 GRAND TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE 728 273 581 725 919 799 -2 353 782 percent change -30 92% 0 00% Enacted bill H R 6523 amount change percent change 195 006 46 500 -85 500 -30 48% 0 00% 0 91% 1 222 852 -34 150 -2 72% -2 50% 158 749 960 -2 936 882 -1 82% -0 33% 707 961 192 -2 596 558 -0 37% 706 804 580 -3 753 170 -0 53% -0 32% 725 682 023 -2 591 558 -0 36% 724 641 908 -3 631 673 -0 50% Source House Armed Services Committee Committee Print HASC No 5 “Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany H R 6523 Public Law 111-383 ” CRS-57 Table A-2 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Missile Defense Funding Authorization amounts in millions of dollars PE Number for R D projects only Program Element Title FY2011 Request Housepassed H R 5136 SASC Recommende d S 3454 0603175C BMD Technology 132 2 132 2 132 2 0603881C BMD Terminal Defense Segment 436 5 436 5 436 5 0603882C BMD Midcourse Defense Segment 1 346 2 1 346 2 1 346 2 0603884C BMD Sensors 454 9 454 9 454 9 0603888C BMD Test Targets 1 113 4 1 113 4 0603890C BMD Enabling Programs 402 8 402 8 402 8 0603891C Special Programs - MDA 270 2 245 2 270 2 0603892C AEGIS BMD 1 467 3 1 467 3 1 467 3 0603893C Space Tracking Surveillance System 112 7 112 7 112 7 0603895C BMD System Space Programs 10 9 10 9 10 9 0603896C BMD Command and Control Battle Management and Communications 342 6 342 6 342 6 0603898C BMD Joint Warfighter Support 68 7 68 7 68 7 0603904C Missile Defense Integration Operations Center MDIOC 86 2 86 2 86 2 0603901C Directed Energy Research 98 7 148 7 98 7 0603906C Regarding Trench 7 5 7 5 7 5 0603907C Sea-Based X-Band Radar SBX 153 1 153 1 153 1 0603913C Israeli Cooperative Programs 121 7 209 7 351 7 0 205 5 230 0 Israeli “Iron Dome” and other defenses against shortrange rockets and artillery shells CRS-58 Comments Funds the system deployed in Alaska and California to defend U S territory 1 113 4 The Senate committee bill increased the amount authorized within this program element by $230 million including $205 million to support Israel’s Iron Dome system to defend against short-range rockets and artillery shells and $25 million for another Israeli short-range defense system The House bill did not increase the total authorization but gave the Secretary of Defense discretion to PE Number for R D projects only Program Element Title FY2011 Request Housepassed H R 5136 SASC Recommende d S 3454 Comments give Israel up to $205 million for Iron Dome H R 5136 Section 1507 0604880C Land-based SM-3 281 4 281 4 281 4 0604881C Aegis SM-3 Block IIA Co-Development 318 8 318 8 318 8 0604883C Precision Tracking Space System 67 0 67 0 67 0 0604884C Airborne Infrared 111 7 111 7 111 7 0901585C Pentagon Reservation 20 5 20 5 20 5 0901598C Management HQ - MDA 29 8 29 8 29 8 7 454 8 7 567 8 7 684 8 9 0 9 0 9 0 858 9 858 9 833 9 94 1 144 1 94 1 0 65 0 0 Subtotal RDT E Missile Defense Agency Base Realignment and Closure BRAC Missile Defense Agency THAAD Fielding Aegis Block 5 Fielding AN TPY-2 radar Subtotal Procurement Missile Defense Agency Total Missile Defense Agency 953 0 1 068 0 928 0 8 416 8 8 644 8 8 621 8 0603305A Army Missile Defense Systems Integration non-space 11 5 11 5 22 0 0603308A Army Missile Defense Systems Integration space 27 6 27 6 27 6 0604869A Patriot MEADS Combined Aggregate Program CAP 467 1 467 1 467 1 0605456A PAC-3 MSE Missile 62 5 62 5 62 5 0605457A Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense 251 1 251 1 251 2 0203801A Missile Air Defense Product Improvement Program 24 3 24 3 24 3 0102419A Aerostat Joint Program Office JLENS 372 5 372 5 372 5 CRS-59 PE Number for R D projects only 0605126J Program Element Title Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization Subtotal RDT E Army Joint Staff Patriot PAC-3 Patriot modifications Subtotal Procurement Army Total Missile Defense R D MilCon Procurement All Agencies FY2011 Request Housepassed H R 5136 SASC Recommende d S 3454 94 6 94 6 94 6 1 311 2 1 311 2 1 321 7 480 2 480 2 480 2 57 2 190 8 190 8 537 4 671 0 671 0 10 265 4 10 627 0 10 614 5 Comments Sources House Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany H R 5136 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 H Rept 111-491 Senate Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany S 3454 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 S Rept 111-201 Notes The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds but the amount available is determined by the appropriations An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized CRS-60 Table A-3 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Missile Defense Funding Appropriations amounts in millions of dollars PE Number for R D projects only 0603175C CRS-61 Program Element Title FY2011 Request Senate Appropriation s Committee S 3800 Housepassed H R 1 H R 1473 Enacted Comments BMD Technology 132 2 98 2 92 2 92 2 431 5 0603881C BMD Terminal Defense Segment 436 5 431 5 431 5 0603882C BMD Midcourse Defense Segment 1 346 2 1 326 2 1 311 2 0603884C BMD Sensors 454 9 392 2 392 2 0603888C BMD Test Targets 1 113 4 956 3 1 008 5 0603890C BMD Enabling Programs 402 8 406 3 406 3 406 3 0603891C Special Programs MDA 270 2 250 2 245 2 245 2 0603892C AEGIS BMD 1 467 3 1 586 3 1 569 3 1 311 2 Transfer development of SM-3 Block IIB missile to “AEGIS BMD” line $40 million Funds the system deployed in Alaska and California to defend U S territory 392 2 1 008 5 1 569 3 0603893C Space Tracking Surveillance System 112 7 112 7 112 7 112 7 0603895C BMD System Space Programs 10 9 10 9 10 9 10 9 0603896C BMD Command and Control Battle Management and Communications 342 6 456 7 456 7 456 7 0603898C BMD Joint Warfighter Support 68 7 58 7 58 7 58 7 0603904C Missile Defense Integration 86 2 86 2 86 2 86 2 Transfer in from “BMD Technology” line $40 million to develop SM-3 Block IIB missile PE Number for R D projects only Program Element Title FY2011 Request Senate Appropriation s Committee S 3800 Housepassed H R 1 H R 1473 Enacted Comments Operations Center MDIOC 0603901C Directed Energy Research 98 7 83 7 123 7 0603906C Regarding Trench 7 5 7 5 7 5 0603907C Sea-Based X-Band Radar SBX 153 1 153 1 153 1 153 1 0603913C Israeli Cooperative Programs not including “Iron Dome” added in procurement account 121 7 209 9 209 9 209 9 0604880C Land-based SM-3 281 4 281 4 281 4 281 4 0604881C Aegis SM-3 Block IIA Co-Development 318 8 322 8 318 8 318 8 0604883C Precision Tracking Space System 67 0 67 0 37 0 37 0 0604884C Airborne Infrared 111 7 86 7 76 7 76 7 0901585C Pentagon Reservation 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 0901598C Management HQ MDA 29 8 29 8 29 8 29 8 7 454 8 7 434 8 7 440 0 858 9 433 9 586 9 586 9 94 1 215 0 94 1 94 1 0 0 205 0 205 0 205 0 Subtotal RDT E Missile Defense Agency THAAD Fielding Aegis Block 5 Fielding “Iron Dome” Israeli defense against short-range rockets and artillery shells CRS-62 123 7 7 5 7 440 0 PE Number for R D projects only Program Element Title Senate Appropriation s Committee S 3800 Housepassed H R 1 H R 1473 Enacted Comments Subtotal Procurement Missile Defense Agency 953 0 853 9 886 0 Total Missile Defense Agency 8 416 8 8 288 7 8 326 0 Army Missile Defense Systems Integration nonspace 11 5 53 8 11 5 11 5 Army Missile Defense Systems Integration space 27 6 47 2 27 6 27 6 467 1 467 1 467 1 467 1 0603305A 0603308A 0604869A Patriot MEADS Combined Aggregate Program CAP 886 0 8 326 0 0605456A PAC-2 MSE Missile 62 5 62 5 62 5 62 5 0605457A Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense 251 1 251 1 251 1 251 1 0203801A Missile Air Defense Product Improvement Program 24 3 28 3 24 3 24 3 372 5 372 5 372 5 372 5 94 6 94 6 94 6 94 6 1 311 2 1 377 1 1 330 8 480 2 613 8 613 8 613 8 57 2 57 2 57 2 57 2 537 4 671 0 671 0 0102419A 0605126J Aerostat Joint Program Office JLENS Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization Subtotal RDT E Army Joint Staff Patriot PAC-3 Patriot modifications Subtotal Procurement Army CRS-63 FY2011 Request 1 330 8 671 0 PE Number for R D projects only Program Element Title Total Missile Defense R D MilCon Procurement All Agencies FY2011 Request 10 265 4 Senate Appropriation s Committee S 3800 10 336 8 Housepassed H R 1 H R 1473 Enacted Comments 10 327 8 10 327 8 Source Data on S 3800 from Senate Appropriations Committee Report to Accompany S 3800 the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill 2011 S Rept 111-295 data on H R 1 from funding tables published in the Congressional Record Congressional Record daily edition February 28 2011 pp E336-E378 data on H R 1473 from the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011 Congressional Record daily edition vol 157 number 55 April 14 2011 pp H2697-H2788 CRS-64 Table A-4 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Army and Marine Corps Programs Authorization amounts in millions of dollars base budget funding in plain type OCO funding in italics Request Procurement SASC recommended ServicesCommittee House-passed R D Procurement R D Procurement R D # $ $ # $ $ # $ $ Light Utility Helicopter 50 305 3 0 0 50 305 3 0 0 50 305 3 0 0 UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter and Mods Army 72 1 414 2 20 6 72 1 431 2 20 6 72 1 414 2 20 6 UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter and Mods Army OCO 2 55 0 2 55 0 0 0 2 55 0 0 0 CH-47 Chinook Helicopter and Mods Army 40 1 225 3 21 0 40 1 225 5 21 0 40 1 225 3 21 0 CH-47 Chinook Helicopter and Mods Army OCO 2 153 5 0 0 2 153 5 0 0 2 153 5 0 0 AH-64 Apache Helo Mods 16 887 6 93 3 16 889 6 93 3 16 887 6 93 3 AH-64 Apache Helo Mods OCO -- 199 2 0 0 -- 199 2 0 0 -- 199 2 0 0 M-2 Bradley Mods — 215 1 97 0 — 215 1 97 0 -- 215 1 97 0 M-1 Abrams tank Mods 21 413 9 107 5 21 413 9 107 5 21 413 9 107 5 Stryker Armored Vehicle and Mods 83 445 9 133 8 83 445 9 133 8 83 445 9 Stryker Armored Vehicle and Mods OCO -- 445 0 0 0 -- 445 0 0 0 -- 445 0 0 0 Paladin howitzer Mods -- 105 3 53 6 -- 0 0 105 6 -- 0 0 83 6 Brigade Combat Team Modernization not including GCV See — 682 7 1 568 1 — 56 0 1 415 4 -- 302 4 1 568 1 Army Ground Combat Vehicle GCV -- 0 0 934 4 -- 0 0 934 4 -- 0 0 934 4 USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle EFV — 242 8 — 242 8 -- 0 0 242 8 CRS-65 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comments 133 8 Cuts reflect termination of the NLOS missile system and delay of other components GCV program was significantly revised after House and SASC action Request Procurement # $ SASC recommended ServicesCommittee House-passed R D Procurement R D $ # $ $ Procurement # R D $ $ Comments Of the total $989 million is to upgrade 9 270 HMMWVs as they are returned to U S from overseas HMMWV Army and USMC new vehicles and upgrades 17 4 8 0 0 17 4 8 0 0 17 4 8 0 0 HMMWV Army and USMC new vehicles and upgrades OCO 77 1 002 1 0 0 77 1 002 1 0 0 77 1 002 1 0 0 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles and USMC Medium Trucks 2 960 929 9 3 7 2 960 929 9 3 7 2 960 929 9 3 7 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles and USMC Medium Trucks OCO 1 692 596 9 0 0 1 692 596 9 0 0 1 692 596 9 0 0 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles and USMC Logistics Vehicle System LVS Replacement 1 517 994 7 3 7 n a 944 7 3 7 1 517 994 7 3 7 702 297 8 0 0 702 297 8 0 0 702 297 8 0 0 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles and USMC Logistics Vehicle System LVS Replacement OCO Number includes only Army vehicles “Number” column includes truck tractors Funding also includes variously equipped trailer units Source House Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany H R 5136 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 H Rept 111-491 Senate Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany S 3454 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 S Rept 111-201 Note The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds but the amount available is determined by the appropriations An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized CRS-66 Table A-5 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Army and Marine Corps Programs Appropriation amounts in millions of dollars base budget funding in plain type OCO funding in italics Senate Committee reported S 3800 Request Procurement R D Procurement R D House-passed H R 1 Procurement # $ R D $ # $ $ Light Utility Helicopter 50 305 3 0 0 50 310 3 0 0 305 3 0 0 305 3 0 0 UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter and Mods Army 72 1 414 2 20 6 84 1 634 5 20 6 1 431 2 20 6 1 431 2 20 6 UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter and Mods Army OCO 2 55 0 0 0 5 107 5 0 0 387 9 0 0 387 9 0 0 CH-47 Chinook Helicopter and Mods Army 40 1 225 3 21 0 46 1 415 7 10 9 1 225 3 10 9 1 225 3 10 9 153 5 0 0 118 2 0 0 325 3 0 0 325 3 0 0 1 $ Procurement $ 2 $ R D # CH-47 Chinook Helicopter and Mods Army OCO # H R 1473 Enacted $ AH-64 Apache Helo and Mods 16 887 6 93 3 12 825 0 93 3 887 6 93 3 887 6 93 3 AH-64 Apache Helo and Mods OCO -- 199 2 0 0 -- 688 8 0 0 688 8 0 0 688 8 0 0 M-2 Bradley Mods — 215 1 97 0 -- 193 1 97 0 204 1 97 0 204 1 97 0 M-1 Abrams tank Mods 21 413 9 107 5 21 413 9 107 5 413 9 107 5 413 9 107 5 Stryker Armored Vehicle and Mods 83 445 9 133 8 83 205 2 436 0 205 2 436 0 205 2 Stryker Armored Vehicle and Mods OCO -- 445 0 0 0 -- 0 0 545 0 0 0 545 0 0 0 bills add OCO funds to replace three aircraft lost in combat bills reduce OCO funding to reflect reduction in projected combat losses Combat Vehicles CRS-67 436 0 763 0 Bills add funds to develop a modification that would make Strykers less vulnerable to IEDs Senate Committee reported S 3800 Request Paladin howitzer Mods -- 105 3 53 6 -- Army Ground Combat Vehicle GCV -- 0 0 934 4 -- USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle EFV — 0 0 242 8 -- 5 3 0 0 0 0 House-passed H R 1 H R 1473 Enacted 83 6 5 3 103 6 5 3 103 6 461 1 0 0 461 1 0 0 461 1 Reflects Army decision to revise the GCV program 222 8 Senate committee recommended cutting $204 million from the request and adding $183 5 million to pay termination costs 222 3 0 0 222 8 0 0 Source Senate Appropriations Committee Report to Accompany S 3800 the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill 2011 S Rept 111-295 data on H R 1 from funding tables published in the Congressional Record Congressional Record daily edition February 28 2011 pp E336-E378 data on H R 1473 from Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011 Congressional Record daily edition vol 157 number 55 April 14 2011 pp H2697-H2788 CRS-68 Table A-6 Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Shipbuilding Programs Authorization amounts in millions of dollars Request Procurement House-passed R D Procurement SASC recommended R D Procurement R D # — $ 2 639 6 $ 93 8 # — $ 2 639 6 $ 93 8 # __ $ 2 639 6 $ 93 8 Comments Includes $1 73 billion for fourth and final year of incremental funding for CVN-78 projected for commissioning in FY2015 plus $908 million in long lead-time funding for CVN-79 Carrier Refueling Overhaul -- 1 663 8 0 0 -- 1 663 8 0 0 -- 1 663 8 0 0 Includes $1 26 billion for the third year of incremental funding for one ship plus $408 million in long leadtime funding for another Virginia-class submarine 2 5 132 7 155 5 2 5 132 2 155 5 2 5 132 7 165 8 Includes $3 4 billion for two ships plus $1 7 billion for long lead-time funding for two ships to be funded in FY2012 and two additional ships to be funded in FY2013 DDG-1000 Destroyer -- 186 3 549 2 -- 186 3 549 2 -- 186 3 549 2 DDG-51 Destroyer 2 2 970 2 0 0 2 2 970 21 0 0 2 2 970 2 0 0 LCS Littoral Combat Ship 2 1 509 3 226 3 2 1 509 3 305 5 2 1 509 3 226 3 Includes $1 23 billion for two ships and $278 million for components that would be used in construction of future ships LHA Helicopter Carrier 1 949 9 0 0 1 949 9 0 0 1 949 9 0 0 A second increment of $2 1 billion to complete the cost of the ship is slated for inclusion in the FY2012 budget request Joint High-Speed Vessel 2 383 5 6 8 2 383 5 6 8 2 383 5 6 8 The Army and Navy each requested funds for one of these high-speed troop and cargo ships Mobile Landing Platform 1 380 0 28 0 1 380 0 28 0 1 380 0 28 0 Based on the design of a commercial tanker this ship is intended to function as a floating pier on which large ships can transfer combat equipment to smaller landing craft CVN-21 Carrier Sources House Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany H R 5136 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 H Rept 111-491 Senate Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany S 3454 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 S Rept 111-201 Note The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds but the amount available is determined by the appropriations An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized CRS-69 Table A-7 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Shipbuilding Programs Appropriations amounts in millions of dollars base budget funding in plain type OCO funding in italics Senate committee reported S 3800 Request Procurement R D Procurement R D House-passed H R 1 Procurement R D H R 1473 Enacted Procurement # $ $ # $ $ # $ $ CVN-21 Carrier — 2 639 6 93 8 — 2 639 6 93 8 __ 2 630 3 91 8 -- 2 630 3 91 8 Includes $1 73 billion for fourth and final year of incremental funding for CVN-78 projected for commissioning in FY2015 plus $908 million in long leadtime funding for CVN-79 Carrier Refueling Overhaul -- 1 663 8 0 0 -- 1 663 8 0 0 -- 1 657 0 0 0 -- 1 657 0 0 0 Includes $1 26 billion for the third year of incremental funding for one ships plus $$408 million in long lead-time funding for another Virginia-class submarine 2 5 132 7 155 5 2 5 132 7 161 5 2 5 121 6 171 5 2 5 121 6 171 5 DDG-1000 Destroyer -- 186 3 549 2 -- 186 3 536 2 -- 77 5 534 2 -- 77 5 534 2 DDG-51 Destroyer 2 2 970 2 0 0 2 2 970 2 0 0 2 2 916 5 0 0 2 916 5 0 0 LCS Littoral Combat Ship 2 1 509 4 226 3 1 893 7 199 4 2 1 359 4 189 6 1 359 4 189 6 Includes $1 23 billion for two ships and $278 million for components that would be used in construction of future ships LHA Helicopter Carrier 1 949 9 0 0 1 949 9 0 0 1 942 8 0 0 942 8 0 0 A second increment of $2 1 billion to complete the cost of the ship is slated for inclusion in the FY2012 budget request Joint High-Speed Vessel 2 383 5 6 7 2 383 5 6 7 2 383 5 6 7 383 5 6 7 The Army and Navy each requested funds for one of these high-speed troop and cargo ships CRS-70 # $ R D 2 2 $ Comments Includes $3 4 billion for two ships plus $1 7 billion for long leadtime funding for two ships to be funded in FY2012 and two additional ships to be funded in FY2013 Senate committee reported S 3800 Request Procurement Mobile Landing Platform R D Procurement R D House-passed H R 1 Procurement R D # $ $ # $ $ # $ $ 1 380 0 0 0 1 480 0 0 0 2 880 0 0 0 H R 1473 Enacted Procurement # $ 2 880 0 R D $ 0 0 Comments Based on the design of a commercial tanker this ship is intended to function as a floating pier on which large ships can transfer combat equipment to smaller landing craft Sources Data on S 3800 from Senate Appropriations Committee Report to Accompany S 3800 the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill 2011 S Rept 111-295 data on H R 1 from funding tables published in the Congressional Record Congressional Record daily edition February 28 2011 pp E336-E378 data on H R 1473 from Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011 Congressional Record daily edition vol 157 number 55 April 14 2011 pp H2697-H2788 CRS-71 Table A-8 Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Navy Marine Corps and Air Force Aircraft Programs Authorization amounts in millions of dollars base budget funding in plain type OCO funding in italics House passed H R 5136 Request Procurement # $ R D $ Procurement # SASC recommended S 3454 R D $ $ Procurement # R D $ $ Comments Both versions of the bill deny funds for one plane $204 9 million requested by Air Force to replace fighter lost in current operations House bill includes $485 million to continue development of an alternate engine F-35A Joint Strike Fighter AF conventional takeoff version and Mods 22 4 110 1 1 101 3 22 4 023 5 1 343 8 22 4 110 1 1 101 3 F-35A Joint Strike Fighter AF conventional takeoff version and Mods OCO 1 204 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-35C Joint Strike Fighter Marine Corps STOVL veresion 13 2 576 1 667 9 13 2 576 1 760 2 13 2 576 1 667 9 F-35B Joint Strike Fighter Navy Carrier-based version 7 1 887 0 707 8 7 1 887 0 800 0 7 1 887 0 707 8 43 8 778 1 2 477 0 42 8 486 6 2 904 0 42 8 573 2 2 477 0 F-22 Fighter Mods -- 492 2 576 3 -- 492 2 576 3 -- 492 2 576 3 F-15 Fighter Mods -- 302 2 222 7 -- 302 2 222 7 -- 302 2 222 7 F-16 Fighter Mods -- 167 2 129 1 -- 167 2 129 1 -- 167 2 129 1 EA-18G Aircraft Navy 12 1 083 9 22 0 12 1 083 9 22 0 12 1 038 0 22 0 F A-18E F Fighter Navy 22 1 787 2 148 4 30 2 287 2 148 4 28 2 027 6 148 4 A-10 Attack Plane Mods -- 165 4 5 7 -- 165 4 5 7 -- 165 4 5 7 A-10 Attack Plane Mods OCO -- 16 5 0 0 -- 16 5 0 0 -- 16 5 0 0 B-1B Bomber Mods -- 200 1 33 2 -- 223 9 33 2 -- 223 9 33 2 B-1B Bomber Mods OCO -- 8 5 0 0 -- 8 5 0 0 -- 8 5 0 0 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter total CRS-72 Adds $500 million for eight additional aircraft House passed H R 5136 Request Procurement # $ $ -- 63 4 260 5 -- 63 4 260 5 B-52 Bomber Mods -- 69 1 146 1 -- 69 1 146 1 -- 69 1 146 1 17 2 048 6 163 0 17 2 112 1 103 2 17 2 048 6 163 0 -- 187 6 0 0 -- 187 6 0 0 -- 187 6 0 0 17 2 236 2 163 0 17 2 299 7 103 2 17 2 236 2 163 0 C-5 Mods -- 907 5 59 0 -- 907 5 59 0 -- 907 5 59 0 C-5 Mods OCO -- 73 4 0 0 -- 73 4 0 0 -- 73 4 0 0 C-17 Mods -- 519 2 177 2 -- 519 2 177 2 -- 519 2 177 2 C-17 Mods OCO -- 224 5 0 0 -- 224 5 0 0 -- 224 5 0 0 C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft 8 351 2 26 4 8 351 2 26 4 8 351 2 26 4 KC-X Tanker Replacement -- 0 0 863 9 -- 0 0 863 9 -- 0 0 863 9 C-37A executive transport 2 52 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 0 30 2 224 9 46 1 30 2 224 9 46 1 30 2 224 9 46 1 MV-22 Osprey Marine Corps and Mods OCO -- 36 4 0 0 -- 36 4 0 0 -- 36 4 0 0 CV-22 Osprey AF and Mods 5 544 7 18 3 5 544 7 18 3 5 544 7 18 3 CV-22 Osprey AF and Mods OCO -- 0 8 0 0 -- 0 8 0 0 -- 0 8 0 0 35 2 784 8 64 4 35 2 784 8 64 4 35 2 784 8 64 4 -- 367 1 14 5 -- 367 1 14 5 -- 367 1 14 5 V-22 Osprey Total Special Operations helicopter Mods CRS-73 $ # R D 260 5 MV-22 Osprey Marine Corps and Mods $ Procurement 63 4 C-130 Total # R D -- C-130 variants and Mods AF OCO $ Procurement B-2A Bomber Mods C-130 variants and Mods AF $ R D SASC recommended S 3454 Comments Gulfstream V used for long-range transport of senior civilian and military officials House passed H R 5136 Request Procurement # $ R D $ Special Operations helicopter Mods OCO -- 9 8 CH-53K Helicopter -- 0 0 VH-71A Executive Helicopter -- HH-60M search and rescue helicopter HH-60M search and rescue helicopter OCO Procurement # $ SASC recommended S 3454 R D $ 0 0 0 0 159 8 -- 3 104 4 0 0 3 114 0 28 Comments -- 0 0 577 4 0 0 159 8 -- 0 0 159 8 3 104 4 0 0 3 104 4 0 0 0 0 3 114 0 0 0 3 114 0 0 0 808 1 60 5 28 808 1 60 5 28 808 1 60 5 3 88 5 0 0 3 88 5 0 0 3 88 5 0 0 42 1 608 7 55 8 42 1 608 7 55 8 42 1 608 7 55 8 P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft 7 1 990 6 929 2 7 1 990 6 929 2 7 1 990 6 929 2 E-2D Hawkeye Aircraft 4 937 8 171 1 4 937 8 171 1 4 937 8 171 1 P-3 EP-3 Aircraft Mods -- 312 3 3 6 -- 312 3 3 6 -- 312 3 3 6 P-3 EP-3 Aircraft Mods OCO -- 6 0 0 0 -- 6 0 0 0 -- 6 0 0 0 E-8 JSTARS ground surveillance plane Mods -- 188 5 168 9 -- 176 8 168 9 291 0 168 9 CRS-74 -- $ 577 4 MH-60R MH-60S Helicopter Navy 577 4 $ 9 8 UH-1Y AH-1Z OCO 9 8 # R D -- UH-1Y AH-1Z -- Procurement Funds are for development of a new helicopter following termination of VH-71 program Table A-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UAVs MQ-4 RQ-4 Global Hawk Navy Air Force 4 859 2 780 6 4 859 2 780 6 4 859 2 780 6 MQ-9 Reaper Air Force 48 1 355 3 125 4 60 1 840 6 125 4 48 1 355 3 125 4 MQ-1 Warrior Predator Army 26 459 3 152 2 26 459 3 152 2 26 459 3 152 2 MQ-1 Warrior Predator Mods -- 384 2 0 0 -- 384 2 0 0 -- 384 2 0 0 RQ-7 Shadow Mods Army -- 620 9 23 6 -- 620 9 23 6 -- 620 9 23 6 RQ-11 Raven multiservice 328 81 4 2 1 328 81 4 2 1 328 81 4 2 1 BCT UAV Increment 1 Army -- 44 2 50 3 -- 44 2 50 3 -- 44 2 50 3 MQ-8 Fire Finder Navy 3 47 5 10 7 3 47 5 10 7 3 47 5 10 7 STUASLO handlaunched UAVs multiservice -- 39 3 44 3 -- 39 3 44 3 -- 39 3 44 3 UCAS carrier-based bomber Navy -- -- 266 4 -- -- 266 4 -- -- 266 4 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Navy -- --- 36 2 -- -- 36 2 -- --- 36 2 Long-Endurance MultiIntelligence Vehicle LEMV Army -- -- 93 0 -- -- 93 0 -- -- 93 0 All procurement for USAF version RQ-4 R D includes $529 3 million for Navy version MQ-4 Blimp-like UAV intended to carry 2 500 lbs or sensors at 20 000 ft for three weeks per mission Source House Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany H R 5136 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 H Rept 111-491 Senate Armed Services Committee Report to Accompany S 3454 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 S Rept 111-201 Notes The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds but the amount available is determined by the appropriations An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized CRS-75 Table A-10 Congressional Action on Selected FY2011 Navy Marine and Air Force Aircraft Programs Appropriation dollar amounts in millions base budget funding in plain type OCO funding in italics Senate committee reported S 3800 Request procurement # R D $ $ procurement # R D $ $ House-passed H R 1 procurement # H R 1473 Enacted R D $ $ procurement # R D $ $ Fighters and Bombers F-35A Joint Strike Fighter AF conventional takeoff version and Mods 22 4 110 1 1 101 3 16 3 290 8 1 051 2 25 4 326 1 1 051 2 25 4 326 1 1 051 2 F-35A Joint Strike Fighter AF conventional takeoff version and Mods OCO 1 204 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-35C Joint Strike Fighter Marine Corps STOVL version 13 2 576 1 667 9 10 2 015 8 588 9 842 0 613 9 842 0 613 9 F-35B Joint Strike Fighter Navy Carrierbased version 7 1 887 0 707 8 6 1 677 4 678 8 1 873 0 676 8 1 873 0 676 8 8 778 1 2 477 0 32 6 93 8 2 318 9 7041 2 2341 9 7041 2 2341 9 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter total 43 F-22 Fighter Mods -- 492 2 576 3 -- 492 2 426 3 437 7 511 3 437 7 511 3 F-15 Fighter Mods -- 302 2 222 7 -- 360 2 207 7 337 0 207 7 337 0 207 7 F-16 Fighter Mods -- 167 2 129 1 -- 167 2 129 1 167 2 129 1 167 2 129 1 EA-18G Aircraft Navy 12 1 083 9 22 0 12 1 038 0 22 0 1 026 3 21 8 1 026 3 21 8 F A-18E F Fighter and Mods Navy 22 2 323 3 148 4 28 2 229 3 151 6 2 668 5 148 4 2 668 5 148 4 A-10 Attack Plane Mods -- 165 4 5 7 -- 165 4 5 7 187 4 5 7 187 4 5 7 A-10 Attack Plane Mods OCO -- 16 5 0 0 -- 16 5 0 0 16 5 0 0 16 5 0 0 B-1B Bomber Mods -- 200 1 33 2 -- 200 1 35 2 200 1 33 2 200 1 33 2 CRS-76 12 Senate committee reported S 3800 Request procurement # $ R D $ procurement # $ R D $ House-passed H R 1 procurement # $ H R 1473 Enacted R D $ procurement # R D $ $ B-1B Bomber Mods OCO -- 8 5 0 0 -- 8 5 0 0 8 5 0 0 8 5 0 0 B-2A Bomber Mods -- 63 4 260 5 -- 63 4 260 5 63 4 276 5 63 4 276 5 69 1 146 1 56 1 141 1 21 1 140 9 21 1 140 9 59 0 820 6 59 0 820 6 59 0 B-52 Bomber Mods Cargo Planes and Tankers C-5 Mods -- 907 3 59 0 -- 901 9 C-5 Mods OCO -- 73 4 0 0 -- 73 4 0 0 73 4 0 0 73 4 0 0 C-17 Mods -- 519 2 177 2 -- 406 8 162 2 217 5 162 2 217 5 162 2 C-17 Mods OCO -- 224 5 0 0 -- 176 5 0 0 176 5 0 0 176 5 0 0 C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft 8 351 2 26 4 8 351 2 26 4 351 2 26 4 351 2 26 4 KC-X Tanker Replacement -- 0 0 863 9 -- 0 0 538 9 0 0 538 9 0 0 538 9 C-37A executive transport 2 52 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 0 C-40A executive transport -- 0 0 0 0 1 74 1 0 0 -- 74 1 0 0 1 74 1 0 0 Helicopters and Tilt-rotors MV-22 Osprey Marine Corps and Mods 30 2 224 9 46 1 30 2 224 9 46 1 2 224 9 44 4 2 224 9 44 4 MV-22 Osprey Marine Corps and Mods OCO -- 36 4 0 0 -- 36 4 0 0 36 4 0 0 36 4 0 0 CV-22 Osprey AF and Mods 5 544 7 32 7 5 544 7 32 7 544 7 32 7 544 7 32 7 CV-22 Osprey AF and Mods OCO -- 0 8 0 0 -- 0 8 0 0 85 8 0 0 85 8 0 0 78 8 2 891 8 77 1 V-22 Osprey Total CRS-77 35 2 784 8 78 8 35 2 784 8 2 891 8 77 1 Senate committee reported S 3800 Request procurement # R D $ procurement $ # R D $ $ House-passed H R 1 procurement # H R 1473 Enacted R D $ procurement $ # R D $ $ Special Operations helicopter Mods -- 367 1 14 5 -- 328 7 36 5 325 6 33 7 325 6 33 7 Special Operations helicopter Mods OCO -- 9 8 0 0 -- 46 1 0 0 57 1 0 0 57 1 0 0 CH-53K Helicopter -- 0 0 577 4 -- 0 0 577 4 0 0 577 4 0 0 577 4 VH-71A Executive Helicopter -- 0 0 159 8 -- 0 0 159 8 0 0 159 8 0 0 159 8 HH-60M search and rescue helicopter 3 104 4 0 0 3 104 4 0 0 104 4 0 0 104 4 0 0 HH-60M search and rescue helicopter and mods OCO 3 114 0 0 0 13 417 4 0 0 417 4 0 0 13 417 4 0 0 28 808 1 60 5 28 797 3 60 5 28 797 3 60 5 28 797 3 60 5 3 88 5 0 0 3 88 5 0 0 3 88 5 0 0 3 88 5 0 0 42 1 608 7 55 8 42 1 608 7 55 8 42 1 571 7 55 8 42 1 571 8 55 8 UH-1Y AH-1Z UH-1Y AH-1Z OCO MH-60R MH-60S Helicopter Navy Manned Surveillance Aircraft P-8A Poseidon MultiMission Maritime Aircraft 7 1 990 6 929 2 7 1 990 6 929 2 7 1 968 2 941 2 7 1 968 2 941 2 E-2D Hawkeye Aircraft 4 937 8 171 1 4 937 8 171 1 5 add plane in OCO 1 112 8 171 1 5 add plane in OCO 1 112 8 171 1 P-3 EP-3 Aircraft Mods -- 312 3 3 6 -- 277 3 3 6 -- 277 3 3 6 277 3 3 6 P-3 EP-3 Aircraft Mods OCO -- 6 0 0 0 -- 6 0 0 0 -- 6 0 0 0 -- 6 0 0 0 E-8 JSTARS ground surveillance plane Mods -- 188 5 168 9 131 8 168 9 -- 6 4 168 9 -- 6 4 168 9 CRS-78 Senate committee reported S 3800 Request procurement # R D $ procurement $ # R D $ $ House-passed H R 1 procurement # H R 1473 Enacted R D $ procurement $ # R D $ $ Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UAVs 691 7 749 6 691 7 749 6 156 4 861 7 214 9 861 7 214 9 656 3 148 1 587 3 148 1 587 3 148 1 -- 571 1 15 6 575 0 15 7 575 0 15 7 2 1 328 71 1 2 1 65 5 2 1 65 5 2 1 44 2 50 3 -- 42 2 50 3 26 6 50 3 26 6 50 3 3 47 5 10 7 3 47 5 10 7 44 0 10 7 44 0 10 7 STUASLO handlaunched UAVs multiservice -- 39 3 44 3 -- 15 4 38 9 15 4 38 9 15 4 38 9 UCAS carrier-based bomber Navy -- -- 266 4 -- -- 266 4 -- 266 4 -- 266 4 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Navy -- --- 35 2 -- --- 8 9 -- 18 9 18 9 Long-Endurance MultiIntelligence Vehicle LEMV Army -- -- 93 0 -- -- 93 0 -- 93 0 93 0 MQ-4 RQ-4 Global Hawk Navy Air Force 4 859 2 780 6 4 804 2 749 6 MQ-9 Reaper Air Force 48 1 355 3 126 4 48 1 299 7 MQ-1 Warrior Predator Army 29 843 3 153 1 26 RQ-7 Shadow Mods Army Navy -- 628 9 15 6 RQ-11 Raven multiservice 328 81 6 BCT UAV Increment 1 Army -- MQ-8 Fire Finder Navy 4 4 Source Data on S 3800 from Senate Appropriations Committee Report to Accompany S 3800 the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill 2011 S Rept 111-295 data on H R 1 from funding tables published in the Congressional Record Congressional Record daily edition February 28 2011 pp E336-E378 data on H R 1473 from Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011 Congressional Record daily edition vol 157 number 55 April 14 2011 pp H2697-H2788 CRS-79 Defense FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations Author Information Pat Towell Coordinator Specialist in U S Defense Policy and Budget Jeremiah Gertler Specialist in Military Aviation Amy Belasco Specialist in U S Defense Policy and Budget Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs Stephen Daggett Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets Nina M Serafino Specialist in International Security Affairs Don J Jansen Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy Andrew Feickert Specialist in Military Ground Forces Daniel H Else Specialist in National Defense Lawrence Kapp Specialist in Military Manpower Policy Steven A Hildreth Specialist in Missile Defense Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service CRS CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role CRS Reports as a work of the United States Government are not subject to copyright protection in the United States Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS However as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material Congressional Research Service R41254 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED 80