GOVERNMENT SERIES

FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations
Including Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, and the Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

GOVERNMENT SERIES

FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations
Including Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, and the Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
Compiled by TheCapitol.Net
Authors: Pat Towell, Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Richard A. Best Jr., Valerie Bailey Grasso, Charles A. Henning, Steven A. Hildreth, Ronald O'Rourke, Nina M. Serafino, Don J. Jansen, Lawrence Kapp, David F. Burrelli, and Charles A. Henning

TheCapitol.Net, Inc. is a non-partisan firm that annually provides continuing professional education and information for thousands of government and business leaders that strengthens representative government and the rule of law. Our publications and courses, written and taught by current Washington insiders who are all independent subject matter experts, show how Washington works.™ Our products and services can be found on our web site at <www.TheCapitol.Net>. Additional copies of FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations can be ordered online: <www.GovernmentSeries.com>. Design and production by Zaccarine Design, Inc., Evanston, IL; 847-864-3994.

∞ The paper used in this publication exceeds the requirements of the American National Standard
for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. Copyright ©2010 By TheCapitol.Net, Inc. PO Box 25706 Alexandria, VA 22313-5706 703-739-3790 Toll free: 1-877-228-5086 <www.TheCapitol.Net> All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original US Government documents. Printed in the United States of America. v1 FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations, softbound: ISBN: 158733-169-1 ISBN 13: 978-1-58733-169-5

Summary Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter 1: “Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations,” by Pat Towell, Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Richard A. Best Jr., Valerie Bailey Grasso, Charles A. Henning, Steven A. Hildreth, Ronald O’Rourke, Nina M. Serafino, and Don J. Jansen, CRS Report for Congress R40567, December 14, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2: “FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues,” by Don J. Jansen, Lawrence Kapp, David F. Burrelli, and Charles A. Henning, CRS Report for Congress R40711, August 27, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Chapter 3: “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,” by Amy Belasco, CRS Report for Congress RL33110, September 28, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Chapter 4: Resources from TheCapitol.Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Chapter 5: Other Resources

...........................................................................

222

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

iii

Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter 1: “Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations,” by Pat Towell, Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Richard A. Best Jr., Valerie Bailey Grasso, Charles A. Henning, Steven A. Hildreth, Ronald O’Rourke, Nina M. Serafino, and Don J. Jansen, CRS Report for Congress R40567, December 14, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Most Recent Developments Defense Authorization Conference Conference Issues in Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3326) Overview of the Administration’s FY2010 Request Status of Legislation War Costs and Issues Debate About Potential Troop Increases in Afghanistan Basis and Status of War Cost Request in Pending Legislation Authorization Action on War Funding Request Changes to DOD’s Request Extensions and Additional Reporting Requirements House-Passed and Senate-Passed Appropriations Action Assessing Uncertainties In Operations Funding Funding for Force Protection Vehicles Transfers from Funding in the Base Budget Coalition Support and Commanders Emergency Response Program Funding Funding for Training Afghan Security Forces and for Guantanamo Bay Base Budget: Comparison and Context Defense Priorities: Budget and Strategy Background: Strategic Direction Strategic Processes Issues for Congress: Secretary Gates’s Proposals Quality of Life Issues End-Strength Increase Health Care and Family Support Preparing for “The Wars We’re In” Intelligence, Reconnaissance, and Surveillance (ISR) Developing Partner Capacity (Section 1206) Army Brigade Combat Teams Special Operations Forces Helicopter Crew Training Shipbuilding—Request Aircraft Carriers

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

v

DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyers CG(X) Cruiser Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) LPD-17, Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), and Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) Aircraft—Request Tactical Combat Aircraft (F-35, F-22, F/A-18) F-22 Raptor Air Mobility (KC-X, C-17) Acquisition Reform (VH-71, CSAR-X) Missile Defense—Request Theater Defenses (THAAD, SM-3, Aegis) Ground-Based National Missile Defense Boost-Phase Defenses (Airborne Laser and KEI) Congressional Perspectives Ground Combat Systems (FCS and EFV)—Request Congressional Perspectives Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date FY2010 Congressional Budget Resolution National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647, S. 1390) Ballistic Missile Defense—Authorization Shipbuilding—Authorization Combat Aircraft—Authorization Ground Combat Systems—Authorization Military Personnel Policy: End-Strength, Pay Raise DOD Civilian Employees: NSPS, A-76 Concurrent Receipt Military Commissions, Detainees and Guantanamo Bay Hate Crimes (Title XLVII) Economic Development Conveyance of Surplus Real Property (BRAC) Guam Realignment Other Senate Provisions FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill Ballistic Missile Defense—Appropriation Shipbuilding—Appropriation Aircraft—Appropriation Ground Combat Systems—Appropriation Other Provisions Table 1. DOD Base Budget Request Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2009–2010 Table 2. Status of FY2010 Defense Authorization Bills, H.R. 2647/S. 1390 Table 3. Status of FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bills (H.R. 3326) Table 4. Congressional Action on DOD’s War FY2010 Budget Request Table 5. Actual and Projected DOD Base Budgets Compared with 4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Table 6. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY1998–FY2009

vi

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Table 7. FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, House and Senate Action by Title, H.R. 2647, S. 1390 Table 8. FY2010 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326) Summary by Title Table A-1. Congressional Action on FY2010 Missile Defense Funding: Authorization Table A-2. Congressional Action on FY2010 Missile Defense Funding: Appropriations Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Authorization Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Appropriations Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Shipbuilding Programs: Authorization Table A-6. Congressional Action on FY2010 Shipbuilding Programs: Appropriations Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Aircraft Programs: Authorization Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Aircraft Programs: Appropriations Table A-9. Congressional Action on FY2010 DOD War Funding Request (Defense Appropriations and Military Construction Appropriations Bills) Appendix. Program Funding Tables

Chapter 2: “FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues,” by Don J. Jansen, Lawrence Kapp, David F. Burrelli, and Charles A. Henning, CRS Report for Congress R40711, August 27, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Background Active Duty End Strengths Military Pay Raise Expansion of Concurrent Receipt Inclusion of Qualifying Service Since September 11, 2001, in Calculating Eligibility for Early Receipt of Reserve Retired Pay Prohibition on Recruiting or Retaining Individuals Associated with Hate Groups Earlier Tricare Prime Eligibility for Certain Reservists Post-Deployment Mental Health Screening Constructive Eligibility for Tricare Benefits for Individuals Otherwise Ineligible Under Retroactive Determination of Medicare Part A Entitlement Tricare Coverage for Certain Members of the Retired Reserve Who Are Not Yet Age 60 Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active Duty Dental Care for Survivors Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical Positions to Civilian and Dental Positions Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between Military Installations and Non-Military Health Care Systems Sexual Assault Government Accountability Office Report on the Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence in Military Families

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

vii

Internship Pilot Program for Military Spouses Language and Cultural Training Survivor Benefit Plan Offset and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Supplemental Assistance Allowance Civilian Employer-sponsored Health Care for Retired Military Employees Suicide Among Members of the Individual Ready Reserve Plan to Increase the Behavioral Health Capabilities of the Department of Defense Reform and Improvement of the Tricare Program Table 1. Authorized Active Duty End Strengths

Chapter 3: “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,” by Amy Belasco, CRS Report for Congress RL33110, September 28, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Introduction Total War Funding Enacted Total War Costs if FY2010 Request is Approved Pending FY2010 Request Potential Troop Increases in Afghanistan War Cost Issues in the 111th Congress War Cost Estimates for Iraq and Afghanistan Problems with Reliability of DOD’s Estimates by Operation Estimates of War-Related Budget Authority Funding for Each Agency Trends in War Funding Estimates for Iraq and Afghanistan and Other Operations CBO Projections of Future Costs Past Trends and Future DOD Costs in Iraq Past Trends and Future DOD Costs in Afghanistan Past Trends and Future Costs in Enhanced Security DOD Spending Thus Far Changes in Average Monthly Obligations Troop Level Changes in the Bush and Obama Administrations Funding to Train and Equip Iraqi and Afghan Security Forces Reset and Reconstitution DOD Changes Definition of War Costs Procurement Funding in FY2007 and FY2008 Front Loading Reset Funding Carryover of DOD War Investment Funding Accuracy and Expansion of Reconstitution Requests Modularity as an Emergency Expense Growing the Force as a War Cost Questions About War-Related Procurement Issues

viii

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Potential Readiness Issues Congressional Options to Affect Military Operations Problems in War Cost Estimates and Reporting Difficulties in Explaining DOD’s War Costs Changes in Troop Strength Reliance on Reservists Falls Changes in Military Personnel Costs Changes in Operating Costs Changes in Investment Costs Special Funds and the Flexibility Issue Average Cost Per Deployed Troop and Future Costs Estimates of Future Costs Figure 1. Active-Duty and Reserve Shares of OIF/OEF Average Annual Troop Levels, FY2003–Early FY2007 Table 1. Estimated War Funding by Operation: FY2001–FY2010 War Request Table 2. Estimated War Funding by Agency: FY2001–FY2010 Table 3. Budget Authority for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror (GWOT) Operations: FY2001–FY2010 Request Table 4. DOD’s Obligations by Operation: FY2001–FY2009 Table 5. Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Funding: FY2004–FY2009 Bridge Table 6. Average Troop Strength for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Counter-Terror Operations, FY2001–FY2007 Table 7. DOD’s War Enacted Budget Authority by Title: FY2004–FY2009 Bridge Table 8. Average Annual Cost Per Deployed Troop: FY2003–FY2006 Table A-1. Chronology of FY2008 War and FY2009 War Requests Table A-2. Enacted FY2008 and FY2009 War Funding Table B-1. Ways To Extend How Long Army Can Operate Without FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Table C-1. Defense Department, Foreign Operations Funding, and VA Medical Funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Activities, FY2001–FY2009 Appendix A. Congressional Action on FY2008 and FY2009 War Funding Appendix B. DOD Tools to Extend Financing War Cost Appendix C. War Appropriations by Act and by Agency

Chapter 4: Resources from TheCapitol.Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Capitol Learning Audio CoursesTM Live Training

Chapter 5: Other Resources

...........................................................................

222

Internet Resources

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

ix

Introduction
FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations
Including Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, and the Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
For the Department of Defense (DOD) in FY2010, the Administration requested a total of $663.8 billion in discretionary budget authority. This includes $533.8 billion for the so-called “base budget”—all DOD activities other than combat operations—and $130.0 billion for “overseas contingency operations,” including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration also requested $75.9 billion in supplemental DOD appropriations for FY2009 to cover war costs. The Administration’s DOD request, made public May 7, 2009, incorporated Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ April 6 recommendations to curtail funding for several major weapons programs focused on conventional warfare. The FY2010 national defense authorization bills drafted by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees generally supported this shift in policy, which the Obama Administration’s budget request reflected. However, both committees added to their respective bills authorization to continue production of the Air Force’s F-22 fighter, and to continue development of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Obama Administration warned that a bill that continued either program would be vetoed. On June 25, the House passed by a vote of 389-22 its version of the FY2010 national defense authorization act, H.R. 2647, which would authorize a total of $534.0 billion for the DOD base budget—$264.8 million more than requested—and $129.3 billion for war costs. The bill also would authorize $16.5 billion for defense-related nuclear activities of the Energy Department, which was $83.3 million more than requested. On July 2, 2009, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported its version of the authorization bill, S. 1390, which would authorize $534.6 billion for the DOD base budget, $129.3 billion for war costs, and $16.4 billion for the Energy Department. The Senate passed the bill July 23, 2009, by a vote of 87-7 after adopting several amendments, including two that would, in effect, end production of the F-22 and terminate the F-35 alternate engine programs, as the Administration had requested. The conference report on the authorization bill authorizes a total of $680.2 billion for military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) and defense-related activities of other federal agencies, which is $14.9 million more than the Obama Administration requested. The conference report, which terminates the F-22 but continues the alternate engine program, was adopted by the House on October 8, 2009, by a vote of 281-146. The Senate adopted the conference report October 22, 2009, by a vote of 68-29 and President Obama signed the bill (P.L. 111-84) on October 28. The House passed its version of the FY2010 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3326) on July 30, 2009, by a vote of 400-30. The bill would appropriate $497.6 billion for the DOD base budget (covering all accounts except military construction) and $128.2 billion for FY2010 war costs. As reported July 24, 2009, by the House Appropriations Committee, the bill would have continued

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

xi

F-22 production and the F-35 alternate engine programs. But the House adopted a floor amendment that would have the effect of terminating F-22 production. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported September 10 an amended version of H.R. 3326 which would appropriate $497.6 billion for the DOD base budget and $128.2 billion for war costs. The committee bill funded neither continued F-22 production nor the F-35 alternate engine. During floor debate, the Senate rejected two amendments that would have eliminated $2.5 billion for the purchase of 10 C-17 cargo planes, which the Senate committee added over the Administration’s objection. The Senate passed the bill October 6, 2009, by a vote of 93-7. "For more information about this book and the defense budget, please see <TheDefenseBudget.com>.

Chapter 1: Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations
Pat Towell, Coordinator Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget December 14, 2009

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40567

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

1

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

Summary
For the Department of Defense (DOD) in FY2010, the Administration requested a total of $663.8 billion in discretionary budget authority. This includes $533.8 billion for the so-called “base budget”—all DOD activities other than combat operations—and $130.0 billion for “overseas contingency operations,” including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration also requested $75.9 billion in supplemental DOD appropriations for FY2009 to cover war costs. The Administration’s DOD request, made public May 7, 2009, incorporated Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ April 6 recommendations to curtail funding for several major weapons programs focused on conventional warfare. The FY2010 national defense authorization bills drafted by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees generally supported this shift in policy, which the Obama Administration’s budget request reflected. However, both committees added to their respective bills authorization to continue production of the Air Force’s F-22 fighter, and to continue development of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Obama Administration warned that a bill that continued either program would be vetoed. On June 25, the House passed by a vote of 389-22 its version of the FY2010 national defense authorization act, H.R. 2647, which would authorize a total of $534.0 billion for the DOD base budget—$264.8 million more than requested—and $129.3 billion for war costs. The bill also would authorize $16.5 billion for defense-related nuclear activities of the Energy Department, which was $83.3 million more than requested. On July 2, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported its version of the authorization bill, S. 1390, which would authorize $534.6 billion for the DOD base budget, $129.3 billion for war costs, and $16.4 billion for the Energy Department. The Senate passed the bill July 23 by a vote of 87-7 after adopting several amendments, including two that would, in effect, end production of the F-22 and terminate the F-35 alternate engine programs, as the Administration had requested. The conference report on the authorization bill authorizes a total of $680.2 billion for military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) and defense-related activities of other federal agencies, which is $14.9 million more than the Obama Administration requested. The conference report, which terminates the F-22 but continues the alternate engine program, was adopted by the House on October 8 by a vote of 281-146. The Senate adopted the conference report October 22 by a vote of 68-29 and President Obama signed the bill (P.L. 111-84) on October 28. The House passed its version of the FY2010 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3326) on July 30, by a vote of 400-30. The bill would appropriate $497.6 billion for the DOD base budget (covering all accounts except military construction) and $128.2 billion for FY2010 war costs. As reported July 24 by the House Appropriations Committee, the bill would have continued F-22 production and the F-35 alternate engine programs. But the House adopted a floor amendment that would have the effect of terminating F-22 production. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported September 10 an amended version of H.R. 3326 which would appropriate $497.6 billion for the DOD base budget and $128.2 billion for war costs. The committee bill funded neither continued F-22 production nor the F-35 alternate engine. During floor debate, the Senate rejected two amendments that would have eliminated $2.5 billion for the purchase of 10 C-17 cargo planes, which the Senate committee added over the Administration’s objection. The Senate passed the bill October 6 by a vote of 93-7.

Congressional Research Service

2

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 1: Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1 Defense Authorization Conference ........................................................................................2 Conference Issues in Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3326) ..............................................3 Overview of the Administration’s FY2010 Request .....................................................................3 Status of Legislation....................................................................................................................5 War Costs and Issues...................................................................................................................6 Debate About Potential Troop Increases in Afghanistan.........................................................7 Basis and Status of War Cost Request in Pending Legislation ................................................9 Authorization Action on War Funding Request .................................................................... 13 Changes to DOD’s Request ........................................................................................... 13 Extensions and Additional Reporting Requirements ...................................................... 14 House-Passed and Senate-Passed Appropriations Action ..................................................... 16 Assessing Uncertainties In Operations Funding ............................................................. 16 Funding for Force Protection Vehicles ........................................................................... 16 Transfers from Funding in the Base Budget ................................................................... 17 Coalition Support and Commanders Emergency Response Program Funding ................ 17 Funding for Training Afghan Security Forces and for Guantanamo Bay......................... 18 Base Budget: Comparison and Context...................................................................................... 18 Defense Priorities: Budget and Strategy..................................................................................... 22 Background: Strategic Direction.......................................................................................... 23 Strategic Processes.............................................................................................................. 24 Issues for Congress: Secretary Gates’s Proposals....................................................................... 25 Quality of Life Issues .......................................................................................................... 25 End-Strength Increase ................................................................................................... 26 Health Care and Family Support ................................................................................... 26 Preparing for “The Wars We’re In”...................................................................................... 28 Intelligence, Reconnaissance, and Surveillance (ISR) .................................................... 28 Developing Partner Capacity (Section 1206) ................................................................. 29 Army Brigade Combat Teams ....................................................................................... 30 Special Operations Forces ............................................................................................. 31 Helicopter Crew Training.............................................................................................. 31 Shipbuilding—Request ....................................................................................................... 31 Aircraft Carriers............................................................................................................ 32 DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyers.............................................................................. 33 CG(X) Cruiser .............................................................................................................. 33 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) .......................................................................................... 34 LPD-17, Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), and Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV)........... 34 Aircraft—Request ............................................................................................................... 35 Tactical Combat Aircraft (F-35, F-22, F/A-18) .............................................................. 35 F-22 Raptor................................................................................................................... 36 Air Mobility (KC-X, C-17) ........................................................................................... 37 Acquisition Reform (VH-71, CSAR-X)......................................................................... 38 Missile Defense—Request .................................................................................................. 39 Theater Defenses (THAAD, SM-3, Aegis) .................................................................... 39 Ground-Based National Missile Defense ....................................................................... 40

Congressional Research Service

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

3

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

Boost-Phase Defenses (Airborne Laser and KEI)........................................................... 40 Congressional Perspectives ........................................................................................... 41 Ground Combat Systems (FCS and EFV)—Request............................................................ 41 Congressional Perspectives ........................................................................................... 42 Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date .............................................................. 43 FY2010 Congressional Budget Resolution .......................................................................... 43 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647, S. 1390) ................................................... 43 Ballistic Missile Defense—Authorization...................................................................... 44 Shipbuilding—Authorization ........................................................................................ 46 Combat Aircraft—Authorization ................................................................................... 48 Ground Combat Systems—Authorization...................................................................... 51 Military Personnel Policy: End-Strength, Pay Raise ...................................................... 52 DOD Civilian Employees: NSPS, A-76 ......................................................................... 52 Concurrent Receipt ....................................................................................................... 53 Military Commissions, Detainees and Guantanamo Bay................................................ 53 Hate Crimes (Title XLVII) ............................................................................................ 55 Economic Development Conveyance of Surplus Real Property (BRAC)........................ 56 Guam Realignment ....................................................................................................... 56 Other Senate Provisions ................................................................................................ 57 FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill................................................................................... 59 Ballistic Missile Defense—Appropriation ..................................................................... 61 Shipbuilding—Appropriation ........................................................................................ 62 Aircraft—Appropriation................................................................................................ 64 Ground Combat Systems—Appropriation ..................................................................... 67 Other Provisions ........................................................................................................... 68

Tables
Table 1. DOD Base Budget Request Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2009-2010....................4 Table 2. Status of FY2010 Defense Authorization Bills, H.R. 2647/S. 1390 .................................6 Table 3. Status of FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bills (H.R. 3326) ..........................................6 Table 4. Congressional Action on DOD’s War FY2010 Budget Request..................................... 12 Table 5. Actual and Projected DOD Base Budgets Compared with 4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ....................................................................................................................... 19 Table 6. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY1998-FY2009 .............................................. 19 Table 7. FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, House and Senate Action by Title, H.R. 2647, S. 1390................................................................................................................. 58 Table 8. FY2010 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326) Summary by Title ............................ 70 Table A-1. Congressional Action on FY2010 Missile Defense Funding: Authorization............... 71 Table A-2. Congressional Action on FY2010 Missile Defense Funding: Appropriations............. 75 Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Authorization......................................................................................................................... 78 Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2010 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Appropriations ....................................................................................................................... 82

Congressional Research Service

4

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

also reduce the amount of advance procurement funding that is to be requested for the ship in FY2010.90

DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyers
The FY2010 budget request included funds to complete the third destroyer of the DDG-1000 class, which was authorized but only partially funded in FY2009, as well as funds to purchase an additional destroyer of the DDG-51 class. In his April 6 press conference, Secretary Gates stated that that the plan to fund both ships in FY2010 depended on, “being able to work out contracts to allow the Navy to efficiently build all three DDG-1000 class ships at Bath Iron Works in Maine and to smoothly restart the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer program at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. Even if these arrangements work out, the DDG-1000 program would end with the third ship and the DDG-51 would continue to be built in both yards.” He added that “If our efforts with industry are unsuccessful, the department will likely build only a single prototype DDG-1000 at Bath and then review our options for restarting production of the DDG-51. If the department is left to pursue this alternative, it would unfortunately reduce our overall procurement of ships and cut workload in both shipyards.”91 Secretary Gates’s proposal regarding destroyer procurement was one of several program actions that he cited after saying, of DOD’s acquisition and contracting processes: “The perennial procurement and contracting cycle—going back many decades—of adding layer upon layer of cost and complexity onto fewer and fewer platforms that take longer and longer to build must come to an end,” he told reporters April 6. “There is broad agreement on the need for acquisition and contracting reform in the Department of Defense. There have been enough studies. Enough hand-wringing. Enough rhetoric. Now is the time for action.”92 Soon after Secretary Gates’s April 6 news conference, it was reported that the Navy had reached an agreement with Bath Iron Works and Northrop to have Bath build all three DDG-1000s. Under the agreement, Northrop would build the first two DDG-51s to be procured under the DDG-51 restart, and Bath would build the third DDG-51.93

CG(X) Cruiser
Secretary Gates proposed a delay in the start of the CG(X) cruiser program “to revisit both the requirements and acquisition strategy” for the program. The Navy wants to procure CG(X)s to replace its 22 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers, which are projected to reach their retirement age of 35 years between 2021 and 2029. In announcing this proposal (and his proposals on the aircraft carrier procurement schedule and on delaying procurement of the 11th LPD-17 amphibious ship and the Mobile Landing Platform ship), Secretary Gates said, “The healthy margin of dominance

Aircraft carrier procurement is discussed further in CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. 91 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Defense Budget Recommendation Statement, April 6, 2009, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341. 92 Ibid. 93 Procurement of DDG-1000 and DDG-51 destroyers is discussed further in CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

90

Congressional Research Service

33

38

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 1: Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

at sea provided by America’s existing battle fleet makes it possible and prudent to slow production of several major surface combatants and other maritime programs.”94

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
Secretary Gates recommended continuation of the planned procurement of Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) which he described as, “a key capability for presence, stability, and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions.” This was one of several recommendations he made after stating: “Our contemporary wartime needs must receive steady long-term funding and a bureaucratic constituency similar to conventional modernization programs. I intend to use the FY10 budget to begin this process.”95 The FY2010 budget requested funding for three more LCSs, consistent with prior Navy planning and represent no change to the program: The LCS program was scheduled to increase from two ships in FY2009 to three ships in FY2010 as part of a plan to ramp up the annual LCS procurement rate to an eventual level of five or more ships per year, and the Navy has planned a total of 55 LCSs since 2006. The LCS program was restructured in 2007 following revelations of significant cost growth and construction problems. The program continues to be a program of particular oversight focus for Congress. The Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, for example, held a hearing on March 10, 2009, to review the status of the program. 96 On September 16, 2009, the Navy announced another restructuring of the LCS program, cancelling its plan to build several ships to each of two competing designs before selecting one of the two for further production. Under the Navy’s new plan, it would choose between the two designs during FY2010 and would procure two LCS ships in FY2010 (instead of the three included in the FY2010 budget request).97

LPD-17, Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), and Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV)
Laying the groundwork for a potentially dramatic change in DOD planning, Secretary Gates proposed deferring from FY2010 to FY2011 the procurement of two ships intended to support amphibious landings, saying he wanted to, “assess costs and analyze the amount of these capabilities the nation needs.”98 Secretary Gates drew the point more sharply during a speech to the Naval War College on April 17, citing amphibious landings as one example of areas in which he wanted the QDR to be “realistic about the scenarios where direct U.S. military action would be needed.” As recently as
94 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Defense Budget Recommendation Statement, April 6, 2009, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341. 95 Ibid. 96 The LCS program is discussed further in CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. 97 Department of Defense, News Release, “Littoral Combat Ship Down Select Accounced,” No. 722-09, September 16, 2009. 98 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Defense Budget Recommendation Statement, April 6, 2009, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341.

Congressional Research Service

34

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

39

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

evaluation of its vehicle modernization program. In regards to the Army’s re-evaluation of its vehicle modernization program, Congress might be expected to play a significant role in this process, as it not only may provide them with an opportunity to shape Army capabilities and force structure, but could also ensure that the eventual acquisition of any new ground combat systems is in line with proposed acquisition reform measures.

Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date
FY2010 Congressional Budget Resolution
The conference report on the annual congressional budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 13) includes a recommended ceiling on FY2010 budget authority and outlays for the “national defense” function of the federal budget that matches President Obama’s request. The budget resolution’s ceilings on budget authority and outlays for national defense and other broad categories (or functions) of federal expenditure are not binding on the Appropriations committees, nor do they formally constrain the authorizing committees in any way. However, the budget resolution’s ceilings on the so-called “050 function”—the budget accounts funding the military activities of DOD and the defense-related activities of the Department of Energy and other agencies—have in the past indicated the general level of support in the House and Senate for the President’s overall defense budget proposal. The House version of the budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 85 ), adopted April 2, set the FY2010 budget authority ceiling for the 050 “national defense” function at $562.0 billion and provided a separate allowance of $130.0 billion—the amount requested for war costs—under function 970 (“overseas deployments and other activities”). Those two ceilings add up to $692.0 billion. The Senate version of the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 13 ), also adopted April 2, set the budget authority ceiling for the 050 national defense function at $691.7 billion and did not set a separate ceiling for overseas deployments. In the reports accompanying their respective resolutions, the House and Senate Budget committees each indicated that the ceilings recommended were intended to accommodate President Obama’s FY2010 DOD budget request. The conference report on the final version of the budget resolution (H.Rept. 111-89) follows the House version’s pattern of setting separate ceilings for a national defense base budget and for overseas deployments. The House adopted the joint resolution April 29 by a vote of 233-193. The Senate adopted it the same day by a vote of 53-43.

National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647, S. 1390)
The conference report on the defense authorization bill (H.Rept. 111-288) was filed on October 7, 2009 and was adopted by the House on October 8 by a vote of 281-146. The Senate adopted the conference report October 22 by a vote of 68-29 and the President signed it into law (P.L. 111-84) on October 28. The conference report authorizes a total of $680.2 billion for military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) and defense-related activities of other federal agencies. The total
Congressional Research Service 43

48

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 1: Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

The version of the amendment that was adopted supplanted an earlier version which would have barred the use of funds to implement a START follow-on agreement unless (1) the treaty placed no limits on missile defenses, space capabilities or advanced conventional weapons and (2) the Administration’s FY2011 budget provides sufficient funding for the Energy Department’s nuclear complex to maintain the reliability and safety of remaining U.S. nuclear forces and to modernize the weapons complex.

North Korean Sanctions
The Senate rejected by a vote of 43-54 an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that North Korea should be officially designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. North Korea had been so-designated by the State Department, but that designation was rescinded in October 2008. Subsequently, the Senate adopted, by a vote of 66-31, an amendment requiring a review of North Korea’s conduct to determine whether it should be re-listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. Table 7. FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, House and Senate Action by Title, H.R. 2647, S. 1390
(amounts in millions of dollars)
HousePassed Administration H.R. 2647 Request National Defense Authorization – Base Budget Procurement 105,819.3 105,198.2 78,634.3 79,654.5 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation 156,444.2 157,276.6 Operation and Maintenance Military Personnel 136,016.3 135,723.8 Other 33,915.1 33,011.9 Authorizations 510,829.2 510,865.0 Subtotal, DOD (non-MilCon) – Base Budget Military 13,111.1 13,635.3 Construction Family Housing 1,958.7 1,958.7 Base Realignment 7,876.3 7,666.3 and Closure (BRAC) Prior year savings — -85.3 General — — Reduction Subtotal, MilCon, 22,946.0 23,175.0 Family Housing, BRAC – Base Budget Total, DOD – 533,775.3 534,040.0 Base Budget SenatePassed S. 1390 105,749.7 79,617.8 Conference Report H.R. 2647 105,029.4 79,251.6

156,393.0 136,016.3 33,552.6 511,329.4

156,179.9 136,016.3 34,033.9 510,511.1

12,733.8 2,308.7 7,876.3

13,692.1 2,235.5 7,952.3

-112.5 — 22,806.3

-175.8 -529.1 23,175.0

534,135.7

533,686.1

Congressional Research Service

58

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

63

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations

Atomic Energy Defense Programs Total Base 550,199.3 Budget, National Defense Authorization (Budget Function 050) Overseas Contingency Operations Procurement 23,741.2 310.3 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation 80,793.5 Operation and Maintenance Military Personnel 13,586.3 Other 10,163.7 Authorizationsa 1,405.0 Military Construction 130,000.0 Total, DOD Overseas Contingency Operations Error correction 680,177.3 Grand Total, National Defense Authorization

Administration Request 16,424.0

HousePassed H.R. 2647 16,507.3

SenatePassed S. 1390 16,424.0

Conference Report H.R. 2647 16,512.5

550,547.3

550,559.7

550,198.5

24,416.0 410.3

24,370.1 310.3

23,878.6 293.3

80,718.7 13,586.3 9,463.7 1,405.0 129,325.0

80,239.2a 13,586.3 9,351.5 1,405.0 129,260.0

80,794.7 14,146.3 9,481.9 1,399.0 129,993.7

-120.0 679,752.3

679,819.7

680,192.2

Sources: CRS calculations based on House Armed Services Committee, Report to Accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, H.Rept. 111-166, June 18, 2009; Senate Armed Services Committee, Report to Accompany S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, S.Rept. 111-35, July 2, 2009. a. The Senate Armed Services Committee includes in this line $7.46 billion requested by the administration and authorized by both bills for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. This table, like the House Armed Services Committee’s summary chart, includes that program in the line entitled, “Other Authorizations.”

FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill
The FY2010 defense appropriations bill which the House passed July 30 by a vote of 400-30 (H.R. 3326) would challenge the Obama Administration’s proposals to terminate or reduce funding for three major weapons programs. The bill would continue development of an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ($560 million), continue production of the C-17 cargo plane ($674 million), and spend an additional $400 million on the VH-71 executive helicopter program, all of which actions the Administration opposed and two of which – the alternate engine and the VH-71 – drew threats that the President might veto a bill that funded them. The bill also would add to the budget request nine F/A-18E/F fighters ($495 million) one Littoral Combat Ship ($540 million) plus $240 million to fully fund the three LCS ships requested, and a

Congressional Research Service

59

64

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 2: FY2010 Nat’l Defense Auth. Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy Lawrence Kapp Specialist in Military Manpower Policy David F. Burrelli Specialist in Military Manpower Policy Charles A. Henning Specialist in Military Manpower Policy August 27, 2009

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40711

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

123

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest in a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) selected a number of the military personnel issues considered in deliberations on the House-passed and Senate passed-versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to personnel policy. It includes background information and a discussion of the issue, along with a table that contains a comparison of the bill (H.R. 2647) passed by the House on June 25, 2009, and the version of this bill passed by Senate on July 23, 2009. A third column will be completed after action on a final version by both chambers. Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, concerning that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report RL34590 are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report. This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices or any discussion of separately introduced legislation.

Congressional Research Service

124

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 2: FY2010 Nat’l Defense Auth. Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................1 *Active Duty End Strengths ........................................................................................................2 *Military Pay Raise.....................................................................................................................4 Expansion of Concurrent Receipt ................................................................................................5 Inclusion of Qualifying Service Since September 11, 2001, in Calculating Eligibility for Early Receipt of Reserve Retired Pay.......................................................................................6 Prohibition on Recruiting or Retaining Individuals Associated with Hate Groups ........................7 Earlier Tricare Prime Eligibility for Certain Reservists ................................................................8 Post-Deployment Mental Health Screening .................................................................................9 Constructive Eligibility for Tricare Benefits for Individuals Otherwise Ineligible Under Retroactive Determination of Medicare Part A Entitlement ..................................................... 10 Tricare Coverage for Certain Members of the Retired Reserve Who Are Not Yet Age 60 ........... 11 Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active Duty.............................................................. 12 Dental Care for Survivors.......................................................................................................... 13 Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical Positions to Civilian and Dental Positions ................................................................................................................................ 14 Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between Military Installations and Non-Military Health Care Systems .............................................................................................................. 15 *Sexual Assault......................................................................................................................... 16 *Government Accountability Office Report on the Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence in Military Families .................................... 17 *Internship Pilot Program for Military Spouses ......................................................................... 18 Language and Cultural Training ................................................................................................ 19 *Survivor Benefit Plan Offset and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation........................... 20 Supplemental Assistance Allowance.......................................................................................... 21 Civilian Employer-sponsored Health Care for Retired Military Employees ................................ 22 Suicide Among Members of the Individual Ready Reserve........................................................ 23 Plan to Increase the Behavioral Health Capabilities of the Department of Defense..................... 24 Reform and Improvement of the Tricare Program...................................................................... 25

Tables
Table 1. Authorized Active Duty End Strengths ...........................................................................3

Congressional Research Service

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

125

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

Civilian Employer-sponsored Health Care for Retired Military Employees
Background: Section 707 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 109-364, October 17, 2006) amended Chapter 55 of Title 10 United States Code to add a new Section 1097c, prohibiting employers from offering their employees financial or other incentives such as Tricare supplemental insurance to use Tricare rather than the employer’s group health plan. The legislation applied to employers with 20 or more employees, including states and units of local government, and mirrors a similar prohibition applicable to the Medicare program. As with Medicare, employers can continue to offer cafeteria benefit plans. The legislation was intended to address employer shifting of health-care costs to Tricare. After enactment, many Tricare beneficiaries no longer were offered Tricare supplements as an employer-sponsored benefit. Insurance companies that marketed such supplemental plans were also impacted by the provision. There also is some question as to whether loss of employer-provided Tricare supplemental insurance may have led Tricare beneficiaries to move from Tricare Standard to Tricare Prime and the budgetary consequences to the Defense Health Program of such an enrollment shift.

House No similar provision.

Senate Sec. 705 requires the Comptroller General to report no later than March 31, 2010 on the implementation of these requirements with respect to the relationship between Tricare and certain civilian employer-sponsored group health plans.

Final

Discussion: The report required by Section 705 would assess the impact of Section 1097c of Title 10, United States Code, with the purpose of determining whether the prohibition on employeroffered incentives to use Tricare has had a budgetary impact on the Defense Health Program. Reference(s): None CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769

Congressional Research Service

22

148

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 3: The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Opts. Since 9/11

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
Amy Belasco Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget September 28, 2009

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33110

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

153

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Summary
With enactment of the FY2009 Supplemental (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32) on June 24, 2009, Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Congress is currently considering the FY2010 War request that was submitted to Congress along with DOD’s baseline request. The House passed its bill on July 30, 2009 (H.R. 3326) and the Senate is expected to act on its version in late September 2009. This $944 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs through FY2009, the current fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $683 billion (72%), OEF about $227 billion (24%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 5% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans. As of July 2009, DOD’s average monthly obligations for contracts and pay were about $10.9 billion, including $7.3 billion for Iraq, and $3.6 billion for Afghanistan. Compared to a year ago when the surge ended but troop levels remained high, average obligations have fallen by about 12%. Decreases in costs as troops are withdrawn from Iraq have been largely offset by increases in costs for additional troops for Afghanistan. The FY2010 war request totals $139 billion including $130 billion for DOD for both wars, $6.4 billion for the State Department’s foreign and diplomatic operations, and $2.1 billion for VA medical costs for OEF and OIF veterans. Overall war funding is decreasing from the peak of $185 billion in FY2008 during the surge in Iraq to $150 billion in FY2009. This decline reflects primarily lower war-related procurement as DOD’s returned to a narrower, more traditional definition of war-related costs, rather than lower troop levels since increases for Afghanistan offset decreases for Iraq. Based on the current request, the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars would fall by another 8% in FY2010, a decrease that is less than the currently planned 19% decrease in overall troop levels. If the Administration’s FY2010 war request is enacted, total war-related funding would reach $1.08 trillion, including $748 billion for Iraq, $300 billion for Afghanistan, $29 billion for enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 69% would be for Iraq, 28% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security. On August 30, 2009, General Stanley McChrystal, Commander in Afghanistan, submitted a strategic assessment and a request for additional troops was reportedly given to Secretary of Defense Gates on September 26 , 2009. That request is unlikely to be vetted either within DOD and the Administration until additional ongoing White House reviews of the strategy are completed. In a January 2009 update, the Congressional Budget Office projected that additional war costs for FY2010-FY2019 could range from $388 billion, if troop levels fell to 30,000 by 2011, to $867 billion, if troop levels fell to 75,000 by about 2013. Under these CBO projections, funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWOT could total about $1.3 trillion to about $1.8 trillion for FY2001FY2019 depending on the scenario.

Congressional Research Service

154

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 3: The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Opts. Since 9/11

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 Total War Funding Enacted ...................................................................................................1 Total War Costs if FY2010 Request is Approved ...................................................................2 Pending FY2010 Request ......................................................................................................3 Potential Troop Increases in Afghanistan .....................................................................................4 War Cost Issues in the 111th Congress..........................................................................................4 War Cost Estimates for Iraq and Afghanistan.........................................................................6 Problems with Reliability of DOD’s Estimates by Operation ...........................................7 Estimates of War-Related Budget Authority.....................................................................8 Funding for Each Agency.............................................................................................. 10 Trends in War Funding.............................................................................................................. 12 Estimates for Iraq and Afghanistan and Other Operations .................................................... 15 CBO Projections of Future Costs................................................................................... 16 Past Trends and Future DOD Costs in Iraq .................................................................... 17 Past Trends and Future DOD Costs in Afghanistan ........................................................ 19 Past Trends and Future Costs in Enhanced Security ....................................................... 19 DOD Spending Thus Far..................................................................................................... 19 Changes in Average Monthly Obligations...................................................................... 22 Troop Level Changes in the Bush and Obama Administrations ............................................ 23 Funding to Train and Equip Iraqi and Afghan Security Forces ............................................. 24 Reset and Reconstitution ..................................................................................................... 26 DOD Changes Definition of War Costs ......................................................................... 26 Procurement Funding in FY2007 and FY2008............................................................... 27 Front Loading Reset Funding ........................................................................................ 27 Carryover of DOD War Investment Funding.................................................................. 28 Accuracy and Expansion of Reconstitution Requests..................................................... 29 Modularity as an Emergency Expense ........................................................................... 30 Growing the Force as a War Cost .................................................................................. 30 Questions About War-Related Procurement Issues......................................................... 31 Potential Readiness Issues................................................................................................... 32 Congressional Options to Affect Military Operations........................................................... 33 Problems in War Cost Estimates and Reporting ......................................................................... 35 Difficulties in Explaining DOD’s War Costs........................................................................ 36 Changes in Troop Strength ............................................................................................ 37 Reliance on Reservists Falls .......................................................................................... 40 Changes in Military Personnel Costs ............................................................................. 41 Changes in Operating Costs .......................................................................................... 42 Changes in Investment Costs......................................................................................... 42 Special Funds and the Flexibility Issue.......................................................................... 43 Average Cost Per Deployed Troop and Future Costs............................................................ 45 Estimates of Future Costs.............................................................................................. 46

Congressional Research Service

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

155

Chapter 3: The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Opts. Since 9/11

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Introduction
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated three military operations: • Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) covering Afghanistan and other Global War on Terror (GWOT) operations ranging from the Philippines to Djibouti that began immediately after the 9/11 attacks and continues; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) providing enhanced security for U.S. military bases and other homeland security that was launched in response to the attacks and continues at a modest level; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) that began in the fall of 2002 with the buildup of troops for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and continues with counterinsurgency and stability operations.

As the ninth year of operations since the 9/11 attacks begins this October, and troops are being withdrawn in Iraq and increased in Afghanistan, the cost of war is a major concern including the total amount appropriated, the amount for each operation, average monthly spending rates, and the scope and duration of future costs. Information on costs is useful to Congress to assess Department of Defense (DOD) war costs in FY2010, conduct oversight of past war costs, and consider future alternatives for Afghanistan including potential additional increases in troop levels which could offset some of the savings from the ongoing withdrawal from Iraq. This report analyzes war funding for the Defense Department and tracks funding for USAID and VA Medical funding.

Total War Funding Enacted
On June 24, 2009, Congress passed the FY2009 Supplemental (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32). On May 5, 2009, the Administration submitted its budget requests for FY2010 which includes $138.6 billion for DOD war costs, State/USAID foreign and diplomatic operations and VA medical care. While the House passed all three appropriation bills in July 2009 before the summer recess—the DOD (H.R. 3326), Military Construction and Veterans Affairs (H.R. 3082), and Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (H.R. 3081), the Senate has not yet acted on its versions. The DOD appropriations bill is expected to be considered in the Senate in late September. In the meantime, the House passed a continuing resolution covering funding for the government through October 31,2009 (H.R. 2918) and the Senate is expected to act this week to give Congress time to complete action on individual appropriation bills. At the end of June 2009, Congress passed the FY2009 Supplemental (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32) which together with the FY2009 bridge fund passed last year (H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) provided war funding for the current fiscal year. Based on DOD estimates and budget submissions, the cumulative total for funds appropriated from the 9/11 attacks through FY2009, total funding enacted to date for DOD, State/USAID and VA for medical costs for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and enhanced security is $944 billion including: • $683 billion for Iraq;

Congressional Research Service

1

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

157

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

• • •

$227 billion for Afghanistan; $29 billion for enhanced security; and $5 billion unallocated.

Of this total, 72% is for Iraq, 24% for Afghanistan, 3% for enhanced security and 1% unallocated. Almost all of the funding for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is for Afghanistan. Some 94% of this funding goes to the Department of Defense to cover primarily incremental warrelated costs, that is, costs that are in addition to normal peacetime activities. These costs include funds to deploy troops and their equipment to Iraq and Afghanistan, to conduct military operations, to provide in-country support at bases, to provide special pay for deployed personnel, and to repair, replace, and upgrade war-worn equipment. These amounts are in addition to DOD’s funding in its baseline or regular budget which covers the costs of regular pay for all military personnel, training activities, running and building facilities on U.S. installations, buying new military equipment, and conducting research to enhance future military capabilities. Of total war costs, another 5% is for foreign and diplomatic activities and less than 1% for VA medical for OEF and OIF veterans (see Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3).

Total War Costs if FY2010 Request is Approved
If the Administration’s request for $139 billion in war costs is enacted, cumulative appropriations for the Afghan and Iraq wars would reach $1.08 trillion dollars. As the number of troops in Afghanistan rises and those in Iraq falls, reflecting President Obama’s decisions in March 2009, the share of overall costs begins to shift to Afghanistan. The $1.08 trillion total includes: • • • • $706 billion for Iraq (69%); $300 billion for Afghanistan (28%); $29 billion for enhanced security (3%); and $5 billion unallocated DOD costs (1%).

In FY2010, annual war costs decline by 8% as the total number of deployed troops falls from the peaks reached in FY2008 and FY2009. The peak of 188,000 in-country in Afghanistan and Iraq in FY2008 is about the same troop level as in FY2009 as additional troops for Afghanistan offset initial withdrawals in Iraq. The $73 billion in war costs for Afghanistan in FY2010 represents a $30 billion or 70% increase over FY2008, two years earlier (see Table 1). With that increase, the balance between the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan would shift—with Afghan war costs exceeding that of Iraq for the first time. In FY2008, the cost of Iraq was 75% and that of Afghanistan 25%. Two years later, Iraq would make up 47% and Afghanistan 53% of the total.

Congressional Research Service

2

158

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

$28.1 billion for enhanced security (Operation Noble Eagle) (4%). 29

The share for Iraq is declining and that for Afghanistan is rising as U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq and grow in Afghanistan. These DOD figures do not include obligations for intelligence or other expenses that are included in CRS average monthly estimates below but not captured by DOD’s war reports compiled by the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS). Based on DOD’s most recent obligations report for July 2009, obligations are currently running about $10.9 illion a month, or almost 25% less than the $14.3 billion average per month in FY2008 during the Iraq surge. This year’s decrease reflects primarily a drop in average obligations in Iraq and a rise in obligations for Afghanistan. Specifically, average obligations are running: • • $7.3 billion in FY2009 compared to $11.1 billion in FY2008 in Iraq and; $3.6 billion in FY2009 compared to $3.1 billion in FY2008 in Afghanistan (see Table 4).

The decrease in Iraq reflects the gradual reversal of the troop surge, where troop levels remained high for much of the year in FY2008, and the beginning of the drawdown. Average obligations based on obligations through July 2009 reflect the deployment of 37,000 additional troops to Afghanistan based on decisions made by the Bush Administration in the winter of 2008 and the Obama Administration this spring. CRS estimates are based on DOD’s obligations reports with additions for funds not reported by DOD such as national intelligence ($43 billion to date) and certain items DOD does not consider war-related, such as congressional adds for C-17 aircraft, force-protection and other items, which are not captured in DOD’s war cost reports.30 Table 4. DOD’s Obligations by Operation: FY2001-FY2009
(in billions of dollars)
Average Monthly Obligations DOD Reported Cumulative Obligations from FY01July 31, 2009 NA NA 577.0 NA

Mission and Type of Spending

FY03 4.2 0.2 4.4 1.1

FY04 4.3 0.6 4.8 0.9

FY05 4.7 1.8 6.5 0.9

FY06 5.9 1.3 7.2 1.2

FY07 7.1 3.2 10.3 1.9

FY08 7.6 3.5 11.1 2.8

FY09 As of July 2009a 5.8 1.5 7.3 3.2

Operation Iraqi Freedom Operationsb Investmentc Total Operationsb
29 30

Afghanistan and the Global War on Terrord

DOD, “Cost of War Slides As of February 28, 2009,” April 2009. DOD, “Cost of War Slides,” February 2009” shows average overall obligations of $13.5 billion. Communication with DOD Comptroller staff, October 2007 and Table 1a in DOD, FY2008 Global War on Terror Amendment, October 2007, for total for non-DOD intelligence and non-GWOT; http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/ Supplemental/FY2008_October_Global_War_On_Terror_Amendment.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

20

176

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 3: The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Opts. Since 9/11

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Average Monthly Obligations DOD Reported Cumulative Obligations from FY01July 31, 2009 NA 150.2 NA NA 28.1 NA NA 755.3

Mission and Type of Spending Investmentc Total Operationsb Investmentc Total Operationsb Investmentc Total

FY03 0.2 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 5.8 0.4 6.2

FY04 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 5.5 0.7 6.2

FY05 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 5.8 2.0 7.7

FY06 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 7.2 1.5 8.7

FY07 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 3.2 12.3

FY08 .3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 3.8 14.3

FY09 As of July 2009a 0.4 3.6 0 0 0 9.1 1.9 10.9

Enhanced Security and Other

All Missions

Sources and Notes: NA = Not available. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Monthly estimates reflect Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) reported obligations through July 31, 2009; see DOD, “Cost War Slides,” July 31, 2009; Operation Enduring Freedom includes Afghanistan and other “Global War on Terror” operations. Monthly average figures for FY2003-July 2009 reflect CRS calculations based on DFAS reports with estimated adjustments for funds excluded by DFAS such as intelligence and some Congressional additions. DOD figures in last column do not include these adjustments. “Enhanced Security and Other” includes additional security at defense bases, combat air patrol around U.S. cities, and reconstruction of the Pentagon after the 9/11 attacks. Reflects FY2009 obligations as of July 2009 as reported in DFAS, “Status of Funds Report,” July 2009. b. Includes funds appropriated for military personnel, operation and maintenance, working capital, and defense health. c. d. Includes funds appropriated for procurement, RDT&E, and military construction. Operation Enduring Freedom funds Afghanistan and other global war on terror (GWOT) activities.

Although obligations go up and down from month-to-month, average obligations are a good indicator of ongoing operational costs because these funds must be obligated—put in contract— within the first year. For investment costs, however, average monthly obligations lag appropriated budget authority since only some funds are obligated in the first year because of the time for the planning and negotiation of contracts. Obligations figures do not reflect outlays—or payments made when goods and services are delivered—which would be a better measure of spending rates and actual costs. In its new Status of War Reports, DOD is now tracking outlays, reversing its previous stance that these could not be captured because war-related appropriations are co-mingled with regular or baseline funds. Outlays are useful in giving a better sense of actual spending rates.

Congressional Research Service

21

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

177

Chapter 3: The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Opts. Since 9/11

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Table 7. DOD’s War Enacted Budget Authority by Title: FY2004-FY2009 Bridge
(in billions of dollars)
Title Military Personnel Operation & Maintenance Defense Health Other Defense Programsa Procurement Research, Dev., Testing & Evaluation Working Capital Fundsb FY04 17.8 42.0 0.7 0.1 7.2 0.4 1.6 0.5 70.3 2.0 Fundc 0.0 [5.0] 0.0 0.0 [1.2] [0] [0] [0] [.2] 0.0 [3.0] 2.0 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.3 FY05 19.7 47.9 1.0 0.2 18.0 0.6 3.0 1.2 91.7 3.8 1.3 5.7 0.0 0.0 [1.2] [0] [0] [0] [.8] 0.0 [3.0] 10.7 102.4 [.2] 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 102.6 FY06 16.7 60.0 1.2 0.2 22.9 0.8 3.0 0.2 105.1 3.3 1.9 3.0 3.3 0.0 [.9] [.4] [0] [.1] [.9] 0.0 [4.5] 11.5 116.7 [.1] 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 116.8 FY07 18.8 75.0 3.0 0.4 45.4 1.5 1.1 1.7 146.9 0.4 7.4 5.5 4.4 1.6 [1.1] [.3] [0] [0] [1.0] 0.0 [3.5] 19.3 166.2 [.2] 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 166.5 FY08 19.1 78.3 2.0 0.3 44.8 1.6 1.9 2.7 150.4 3.8 2.8 3.0 4.3 0.0 [.8] [0] [0] [.2] [1.8]. 16.8 [6.5] 30.6 181.1 [.2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 181.1 FY09 Bridge 1.2 51.9 1.1 0.2 4.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 59.2 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 [.2] [0] [0] [NA] [1.3] 1.7 [4.0] 6.7 65.9 [0] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.9

Military Construction Subtotal: Regular Titles Special Funds and Caps Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF) Afghan Sec. Forces Training

Iraq Security Forces Training Fundc Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fundd Strategic Reserve Readiness Fundd Coalition Support Cape Lift and sustain Capf Global lift and sustain Cape Global train and equip Cape

Cmdrs’ Emerg. Response Cape Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Transfer Account Special Transfer Authority Capf Subtotal: Special Funds Dept. of Defense Total Coast Guard Transfer Intell. Comm. Mgt Fund Def. Nuclear Nonproliferation Salaries & Expenses, FBI Subtotal: Defense-Relatedg National Defense Total

Sources: CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 110-60, S.Rept. 110-37, H.Rept. 110-107, H.R. 1591 and H.R. 2206 as passed by both houses, and “additional explanatory materials” in the Congressional Record, May 24, 2007, p. H .8506ff. Submitted by Congressman Obey, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee. Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding. This table separates funds with special purposes such as the Afghan Security Forces Fund from the regular titles to better identify trends. For FY2007, request reflects

Congressional Research Service

39

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

195

Chapter 3: The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Opts. Since 9/11

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Appendix C. War Appropriations by Act and by Agency
The table below shows enacted appropriations by act from FY2001-FY2009 Supplemental.124 Table C-1. Defense Department, Foreign Operations Funding, and VA Medical Funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Activities, FY2001-FY2009
(in billions of dollars of budget authority)
Name of Law FY2001 Emerg. Supp. Approp. Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States FY2002 Dept. Of Defense and Emergency Terrorism Response Act FY2002 Emergency Supplemental FY2002 Regular Foreign Operations FY2003 Consolidated Approps FY2003 Emergency Supplemental FY2003 DOD Appropriationsa FY2004 DOD Appropriations Acta FY2004 Emergency Supplemental FY2004 Foreign Operations Approps. FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act, Titles IX and Xb FY2005 Supplemental Appropsc FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations FY2005 DOD Appropriations Actd FY2006 DOD Approps Act, Title IXb Public Law No. P.L. 107-38 P.L. 107-117 P.L. 107-206 P.L. 107-115 P.L. 108-7 P.L. 108-11 P.L. 107-48 P.L. 108-87 P.L. 108-106 P.L. 108-199 P.L. 108-287 P.L. 109-13 P.L. 108-447 P.L. 108-287 P.L. 109-148 P.L. 109-148 P.L. 109-102 P.L. 109-108 P.L. 109-54 Date Enacted 9/18/01 1/10/02 8/2/02 1/10-02 2/20/03 4/16/03 10/23/02 9/30/03 11/6/03 1/23/04 8/5/04 5/11/05 12/8/04 8/5/04 12/30/05 12/30/05 11/14/05 11/22/05 8/2/05 DOD Funds 14.0 3.4 13.8 0.0 10.0 62.6 7.1 -3.5 64.9 0.0 25.0 75.9 0.0 2.1 50.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Foreign Aid Embassy 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.5 0.7 3.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 VA Medical 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total cost 14.3 3.4 14.1 0.2 10.4 66.0 7.1 -3.5 86.1 0.5 25.7 79.0 1.0 2.1 50.0 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.2

FY2006 DOD Appropriations Actd FY2006 Foreign Operations Approps. FY2006 Science, State, & Rel. Agencies Appropriations Actc FY2006 Interior & Rel. Ag. Approp.e

124 NA=Not Applicable. Totals may not add due to rounding. Totals reflect budget authority for war-related expenses from appropriations and transfers, and exclude contingent appropriations not approved, rescissions that do not affect war-related funds, and transfers that were later restored in supplemental appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

61

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

217

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Name of Law FY2006 Military Quality of Life & Veterans Affairse FY2006 Emergency Supplemental FY2007 DOD Appropriations Act, Baseline and Title IXb FY2007 Continuing Resolutionf FY2007 Supplemental FY2008 Continuing Resolution FY2008 DOD Appropriations Act FY2008 Consolidated Approps. Act FY2008 Supplemental Approps. Act Subtotal Unidentified Transfersg FY2003 Transfers FY2004 Transfers FY2005 Transfers Subtotal Transfersg Total Enacted (w/transfers)

Public Law No. P.L. 109-114 P.L. 109-234 P.L. 109-289 P.L. 110-5 P.L. 110-28 P.L. 110-92 P.L. 110-116 P.L. 110-161 P.L. 110-252

Date Enacted 11/30/05 6/14/06 9/29/06 2/15/07 5/25/07 9/29/07 11/13/07 12/26/07 6/30/08

DOD Funds 0.0 66.0 70.5 0.0 94.5 5.2 12.2 70.0 160.2 804.1

Foreign Aid Embassy 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.1 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.6

VA Medical 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9

Total cost 0.4 69.2 70.5 1.8 98.7 5.2 12.2 73.0 163.6 864.0 2.0 1.2 5.7 1.5 10.4 864.0

unknown various various various

unknown NA NA NA

2.0 1.2 5.7 1.5 10.4 814.5

NA

NA

Sources: CRS calculations based on public laws, reports, explanatory statements, and DOD documents. Totals may not add due to rounding. a. b. FY2003 Appropriations Act included $7.1 billion in regular FY2003 defense appropriations for GWOT that DOD cannot track; the FY2004 DOD Appropriations Act rescinded $3.5 billion in FY2003 war monies. DOD’s regular appropriations bills included a separate Title IX for additional emergency appropriations for war costs in FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007 to “bridge” the gap between the beginning of the fiscal year and passage of a supplemental. Title IX funds in FY2005 do not include a $1.8 billion scoring adjustment that reverses the previous rescission of FY2004 funds because this did not change wartime monies. Excludes funds for Tsunami relief. Reflects funds obligated for enhanced security (Operation Noble Eagle) in FY2005 and FY2006 from DOD’s baseline funds as reported by Defense Finance Accounting Service. Includes VA medical funds for Iraq and Afghan veterans in emergency funding in Interior bill and in regular VA appropriations. State Department figures for foreign aid, reconstruction and embassy operations in FY2007 CR and CRS estimates of likely amounts to be provided for Iraq and Afghanistan for VA medical under the FY2007 Continuing Resolution. CRS calculations of transfers from DOD’s regular appropriations to war funding based on DOD’s 1414 reports on prior approval reprogrammings and other sources. From DOD documents, it appears that DOD transferred about $2.0 billion from its baseline funds to prepare for the Iraq invasion during the summer and fall of 2002 but the source of those funds is not identified.

c. d. e. f.

g.

Congressional Research Service

62

218

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

Chapter 4: Resources from TheCapitol.Net

Resources from TheCapitol.Net
Capitol Learning Audio Courses™
<www.CapitolLearning.com>
• How to Read and Decipher the Department of Defense (DoD) Budget: A Primer for Defense Industry Professionals ISBN: 1587330741 • The Appropriations Process in a Nutshell ISBN: 1587330431 • Authorizations and Appropriations in a Nutshell ISBN: 1587330296

Live Training
<www.CapitolHillTraining.com>
• The Defense Budget <www.TheDefenseBudget.com> • The President’s Budget <www.PresidentsBudget.com> • Capitol Hill Workshop <www.CapitolHillWorkshop.com> • Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations <www.CongressionalBudgeting.com> • Advanced Federal Budget Process <www.BudgetProcess.com>

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

221

Goverment Series: FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations

Other Resources
Internet Resources
• Department of Defense (DoD) <http://www.defense.gov> • Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) <http://comptroller.defense.gov> • Cato Institute: Foreign Policy and National Security <http://www.cato.org/foreign-policy-national-security> • The Independent Institute, Defense and Foreign Policy <http://www.independent.org/issues/search.asp?subID=13> • Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments <http://www.csbaonline.org/2006-1/2.DefenseBudget/BudgetProgram.shtml> • The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation <http://www.armscontrolcenter.org> • National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) <http://www.ndia.org> • Center for Defense Information <http://www.cdi.org> • Center for Strategic and International Studies <http://www.csis.org> • RAND Corporation <http://www.rand.org> • The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) <http://www.iiss.org> • Military Reporters and Editors <http://militaryreporters.org> • Defense Industry Daily <http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com> • Defense News <http://www.defensenews.com> • DefenseTech <http://defensetech.org> • Wired Magazine: Danger Room—What's Next in National Security <http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/>

222

Copyright ©2010 by TheCapitol.Net. All Rights Reserved. No claim made to original U.S. government documents. 703-739-3790 www.thecapitol.net

About TheCapitol.Net
We help you understand Washington and Congress.™ For over 30 years, TheCapitol.Net and its predecessor, Congressional Quarterly Executive Conferences, have been training professionals from government, military, business, and NGOs on the dynamics and operations of the legislative and executive branches and how to work with them. Instruction includes topics on the legislative and budget process, congressional operations, public and foreign policy development, advocacy and media training, business etiquette and writing. All training includes course materials. TheCapitol.Net encompasses a dynamic team of more than 150 faculty members and authors, all of whom are independent subject matter experts and veterans in their fields. Faculty and authors include senior government executives, former Members of Congress, Hill and agency staff, editors and journalists, lobbyists, lawyers, nonprofit executives and scholars. We’ve worked with hundreds of clients across the country to develop and produce a wide variety of custom, on-site training. All courses, seminars and workshops can be tailored to align with your organization’s educational objectives and presented on-site at your location. Our practitioner books and publications are written by leading subject matter experts. TheCapitol.Net has more than 2,000 clients representing congressional offices, federal and state agencies, military branches, corporations, associations, news media and NGOs nationwide. Our blog: Hobnob Blog—hit or miss ... give or take ... this or that ...
TheCapitol.Net is on Yelp.
Our recommended provider of government training in Brazil is PATRI/EDUCARE <www.patri.com>

T.C.Williams
Debate Society
TheCapitol.Net supports the T.C. Williams Debate Society, Scholarship Fund of Alexandria, and Sunlight Foundation

Non-partisan training and publications that show how Washington works.™

PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706 703-739-3790 www.TheCapitol.Net

GOVERNMENT SERIES

GOVERNMENT SERIES

GOVERNMENT SERIES

GOVERNMENT SERIES

Congressional Authorizations and Appropriations
How Congress Exercises the Power of the Purse through Authorizing Legislation, Appropriations Measures, Supplemental Appropriations, Earmarks, and Enforcing the Authorization-Appropriations Process

Cap and Trade
The Kyoto Protocol, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Carbon Tax, Emission Allowances, Acid Rain SO2 Program, Ozone Transport Commission, NOX, Carbon Markets, and Climate Change
Compiled by TheCapitol.Net

The Federal Budget Process
A Description of the Federal and Congressional Budget Processes, Including Timelines

How Our Laws Are Made

GOVERNMENT SERIES

GOVERNMENT SERIES

GOVERNMENT SERIES

GOVERNMENT SERIES

Smart Grid
Modernizing Electric Power Transmission and Distribution; Energy Independence, Storage and Security; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA); Improving Electrical Grid Efficiency, Communication, Reliability, and Resiliency; Integrating New and Renewable Energy Sources

Energy: Ethanol
The Production and Use of Biofuels, Biodiesel, and Ethanol; Agriculture-Based Renewable Energy Production Including Corn and Sugar; the Ethanol “Blend Wall”; Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS and RFS2); Cellulosic Biofuels; 2007 Energy Bill; 2008 Farm Bill; Food and Livestock Feed Price Inflation; Caribbean Basin Initiative; and U.S.-Brazil Energy Cooperation
Compiled by TheCapitol.Net

Energy:
Natural Gas
The Production and Use of Natural Gas, Natural Gas Imports and Exports, EPAct Project, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals and Infrastructure Security, Underground Working Gas Storage, Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal, Natural Gas, and Biomass, Gas Hydrates, Gas Shales, Hydraulic Fracturing, Alaska Natural Gas Pipelines
Compiled by TheCapitol.Net

Congressional

Pay and Perks
Salaries, Pensions and Retirement, Franking, Travel, and Other Benefits for U.S. Senators and Representatives

The Government Series from TheCapitol.Net consists of shorter publications combining government information with authored material from our faculty and authors. Government Series publications are available through regular and online bookstores.

Printed in the United States of America

Published by TheCapitol.Net, PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706 www.TheCapitol.Net Toll-free: 1-877-228-5086

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful