Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: Overview of FY2019 Appropriations

Summary: The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill contains funding for more than 30 agencies and entities. They include most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) as well as agencies within other departments, such as the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and other organizations and entities. Issues for Congress included determining the amount, terms, and conditions of funding for agencies and programs.

Summary: For FY2019, the enacted appropriation for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was $35.61 billion. This total was composed of $13.02 billion for DOI agencies in Title I, $8.06 billion for EPA in Title II, $13.74 billion for the 23 "related agencies" in Title III, and $791.0 million in Title IV for certain EPA activities.

Summary: The FY2019 appropriation was $300.0 million (0.8%) more than the FY2018 regular appropriation of $35.31 billion (in P.L. 115-141), but $975.4 million (2.7%) less than the FY2018 total appropriation of $36.59 billion, including $1.28 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief (in P.L. 115-72 and P.L. 115-123). The FY2019 appropriation was $7.28 billion (25.7%) more than the President's request ($28.34 billion), $305.5 million (0.9%) more than the House-passed level ($35.31 billion), and $301.0 million (0.8%) less than the Senate-passed amount ($35.91 billion).

Summary: Because the FY2019 appropriation was not enacted until February 15, 2019, agencies received continuing appropriations for certain periods before that date. Specifically, from October 1, 2018, through December 21, 2018, and again from January 25, 2019, through February 15, 2019, appropriations were provided under a continuing resolution (CR) at the FY2018 level (in Division G of P.L. 115-141). Due to a lapse in funds after December 21, 2018, until January 25, 2019, a partial government shutdown went into effect. Agencies in the Interior bill generally operated under "contingency" plans that summarize activities that would cease and activities that would continue during a lapse in appropriations.

Summary: In earlier action, President Trump's request of $28.34 billion for FY2019 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies included $10.59 billion for DOI agencies, $6.19 billion for EPA, and $11.56 billion for related agencies. The versions of H.R. 6147 (115th Congress) passed by the House on July 19, 2018, and by the Senate on August 1, 2018, contained higher FY2019 appropriations overall, and for each title of the bill, than requested. The President's request also contained a legislative proposal for a $1.52 billion cap adjustment to the discretionary spending limits in law for certain wildland fire suppression activities. This cap adjustment was not approved by the chambers or enacted for FY2019. However, Congress enacted a similar proposal (in P.L. 115-141), under which the adjustment becomes available in FY2020.

Summary: The President, House, and Senate each proposed less funding for FY2019 relative to the FY2018 total of $36.59 billion (including emergency supplemental appropriations), proposing 22.5%, 3.5%, and 1.8% less, respectively. In contrast, relative to the regular FY2018 appropriation of $35.31 billion, the President would have reduced funding (19.8%), the House would have provided nearly level appropriations (<0.1% decrease), and the Senate would have increased funding (1.7%) for FY2019.

Summary: For individual agencies and programs in the bill, there are many differences among the funding levels enacted for FY2019 and those supported by the President, House, and Senate for FY2019 and enacted for FY2018. This report highlights funding for selected agencies and programs that have been among the many of interest to Congress, stakeholders, and the public.

This report focuses on FY2019 discretionary appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. At issue for Congress were determining the amount of funding for agencies and programs in the bill, and the terms and conditions of such funding.

This report first presents a short overview of the agencies and other entities funded in the bill. It then describes the appropriations requested by President Trump for FY2019 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Next, it briefly compares the appropriations enacted for FY2018 with the FY2019 appropriations requested by the President; passed by the House in H.R. 6147 (115 th Congress) on July 19, 2018; passed by the Senate, also in H.R. 6147 (115 th Congress) on August 1, 2018; and enacted in Division E of P.L. 116-6 on February 15, 2019. Finally, this report compares FY2018 and FY2019 funding for several agencies and issues that have been among those of interest to Congress. They include the Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Park Service, Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Geological Survey, and Wildland Fire Management.

For FY2019, the enacted appropriation for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was $35.61 billion. This total was composed of $13.02 billion for DOI agencies in Title I, $8.06 billion for EPA in Title II, $13.74 billion for "Related Agencies" in Title III, and $791.0 million in Title IV for certain activities of EPA. The FY2019 appropriation was $300.0 million (0.8%) more than the FY2018 regular appropriation of $35.31 billion, but $975.4 million (2.7%) less than the FY2018 total appropriation of $36.59 billion, including $1.28 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief. The FY2019 appropriation was $7.28 billion (25.7%) more than the President's request ($28.34 billion), $305.5 million (0.9%) more than the level passed by the House ($35.31 billion), and $301.0 million (0.8%) less than the level passed by the Senate ($35.91 billion).

Because the FY2019 appropriation was not enacted until February 15, 2019, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies received continuing appropriations for certain periods before that date. Specifically, from the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2018, through December 21, 2018, continuing appropriations were provided at the FY2018 level (in Division G of P.L. 115-141 ). The continuing resolution (CR) generally provided funds for continuing projects and activities under the same authority and conditions and to the same extent and manner as for FY2018. However, the CR included certain exceptions ("anomalies") that changed the purposes or amounts of funds, extended expiring provisions of law, or made other changes to existing law.

The CR expired after December 21, 2018, before being extended on January 25, 2019, through February 15, 2019. As a result of the lapse in funds, a partial government shutdown went into effect between December 22, 2018, and January 25, 2019. During that time, agencies in the Interior bill generally operated under "contingency" plans that summarize activities that would cease and activities that would continue during a lapse in appropriations.

In the 116 th Congress, the House and Senate considered a variety of measures to provide FY2019 funding to Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Other than H.J.Res. 31 , enacted as P.L. 116-6 and containing regular FY2019 appropriations, these measures are not discussed in this report. They included proposals for relatively short-term as well as full-year funding, and are identified on the CRS Appropriations Status Table at http://www.crs.gov/AppropriationsStatusTable/Index .

Appropriations are complex. Budget justifications for some agencies are large, often several hundred pages long and containing numerous funding, programmatic, and legislative changes for congressional consideration. Further, appropriations laws provide funds for numerous accounts, activities, and subactivities, and the accompanying explanatory statements provide additional directives and other important information. This report generally does not provide in-depth information at the account and subaccount levels, nor does it detail budgetary reorganizations or legislative changes enacted in law or proposed for FY2019. For information on a particular agency or on individual accounts, programs, or activities administered by a particular agency, contact the key policy staff listed at the end of this report. In addition, for selected reports related to appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, such as individual agencies (e.g., National Park Service) or cross-cutting programs (e.g., Wildland Fire Management), see the "Interior & Environment Appropriations" subissue under the "Appropriations" Issue Area page on the Congressional Research Service (CRS) website.

Overview of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding and other provisions for agencies and programs in three separate federal departments and for numerous related agencies. The Interior bill typically contains three primary appropriations titles and a fourth title with general provisions. Title I provides funding for most Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies, many of which manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. Title I also typically includes general provisions related to DOI agencies. Title II contains appropriations and administrative provisions for EPA. Title III, Related Agencies, currently funds 23 agencies in other departments, such as the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human Services; arts and cultural agencies, including the Smithsonian Institution; and various other organizations and entities. Title III also contains administrative provisions for some agencies funded therein. A fourth title of the bill, General Provisions, typically contains additional guidance and direction for agencies in the bill. In addition, in the FY2018 appropriations law and the House-passed, Senate-passed, and enacted measures for FY2019, Title IV also included appropriations, primarily for EPA. Selected major agencies in the Interior bill are briefly described below.

DOI's mission is to protect and manage the nation's natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources and natural hazards; and exercise trust responsibilities and other commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. There are eight DOI agencies and two other broad accounts funded in the Interior bill that carry out this mission. Hereinafter, these agencies and broad accounts are referred to collectively as the 10 DOI "agencies." Not including the two broad accounts, the DOI agencies funded in the Interior bill include the following:

The Bureau of Land Management administers about 246 million acres of public land, mostly in the West, for diverse uses such as energy and mineral development, livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700 million acres of federal onshore subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation and supervises the mineral operations on about 56 million acres of Indian trust lands. The U.S. F ish and Wildlife Service administers 89 million acres of federal land within the National Wildlife Refuge System and other areas, including 77 million acres in Alaska. It also manages several large marine refuges and marine national monuments, sometimes jointly with other federal agencies. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary agency responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) through listing of species; consulting with other federal agencies; collaborating with private entities and state, tribal, and local governments; and other measures. It is also the primary agency responsible for promoting wildlife habitat; enforcing federal wildlife laws; supporting wildlife and ecosystem science; conserving migratory birds; administering grants to aid state fish and wildlife programs; and coordinating with state, international, and other federal agencies on fish and wildlife issues. The National Park Service administers 80 million acres of federal land within the National Park System, including 419 separate units in the 50 states, District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Roughly two-thirds of the system's lands are in Alaska. The National Park Service has a dual mission—to preserve unique resources and to provide for their enjoyment by the public. The agency also supports and promotes some resource conservation activities outside the National Park System through grant and technical assistance programs and cooperation with partners. The U.S. Geological Survey is a science agency that provides physical and biological information related to geological resources; climate and land use change; natural hazards; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences and resources. In addition, it is the federal government's principal civilian mapping agency and a primary source of data on the quality of the nation's water resources. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management manages development of the nation's offshore conventional and renewable energy resources in the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic. These resources are located in areas covering approximately 1.7 billion acres located beyond state waters, mostly in the Alaska region (more than 1 billion acres) but also off all coastal states. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement provides regulatory and safety oversight for resource development in the outer continental shelf. Among its responsibilities are oil and gas permitting, facility inspections, environmental compliance, and oil spill response planning. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement works with states and tribes to reclaim abandoned coal mining sites. The agency also regulates active coal mining sites to minimize environmental impacts during mining and to reclaim affected lands and waters after mining. Indian Affairs agencies provide and fund a variety of services to federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members. Historically, these agencies have taken the lead in federal dealings with tribes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for programs that include government operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, roads, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, irrigation, dams, Indian rights protection, implementation of land and water settlements, and management of trust assets (real estate and natural resources). The Bureau of Indian Education funds an elementary and secondary school system, institutions of higher education, and other educational programs.

Title II. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA has no organic statute establishing an overall mission; rather, the agency administers various environmental statutes, which have an express or general objective to protect human health and the environment. Primary responsibilities include the implementation of federal statutes regulating air quality, water quality, drinking water safety, pesticides, toxic substances, management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist states and local governments in implementing federal law and complying with federal requirements to control pollution. The agency also administers programs that provide financial assistance for public wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects.

Title III of the Interior bill currently funds 23 agencies, organizations, and other entities, which are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Related Agencies." Among the Related Agencies funded in the Interior bill, roughly 95% of the funding is typically provided to the following:

The Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture manages 193 million acres of federal land within the National Forest System—consisting of national forests, national grasslands, and other areas—in 43 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It also provides technical and financial assistance to states, tribes, and private forest landowners and conducts research on sustaining forest resources for future generations. The Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human Services provides medical and environmental health services for more than 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. Health care is provided through a system of facilities and programs operated by the agency, tribes and tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations. The agency operates 26 hospitals, 57 health centers, and 21 health stations. Tribes and tribal organizations, through Indian Health Service contracts and compacts, operate another 22 hospitals, 286 health centers, 62 health stations, and 134 Alaska Native village clinics. The Smithsonian Institution is a museum and research complex consisting of 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and 9 research facilities throughout the United States and around the world. Established by federal legislation in 1846 with the acceptance of a trust donation by the institution's namesake benefactor, the Smithsonian is funded by both federal appropriations and a private trust. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities make up the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. The National Endowment for the Arts is a major federal source of support for all arts disciplines. Since 1965, it has awarded more than 145,000 grants, which have been distributed to all states. The National Endowment for the Humanities generally supports grants for humanities education, research, preservation, and public humanities programs; creation of regional humanities centers; and development of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of state humanities councils. Since 1965, it has awarded approximately 63,000 grants. It also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private donations in support of humanities institutions.

For FY2019, President Trump requested $28.34 billion for the more than 30 agencies and entities in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The President also requested the establishment of a new adjustment to the discretionary spending limits for certain wildland fire suppression activities, and he requested $1.52 billion to be made available through the cap adjustment for FY2019. Budget authority designated for those activities would cause the spending limits to be adjusted, making it effectively not subject to the limits.

For the 10 major DOI agencies in Title I of the bill, the request was $10.59 billion, or 37.4% of the $28.34 billion total requested. For EPA, funded in Title II of the bill, the request was $6.19 billion, or 21.8% of the total. For the 23 agencies and other entities funded in Title III of the bill, the request was $11.56 billion, or 40.8% of the total.

Appropriations for agencies vary widely for reasons relating to the number, breadth, and complexity of agency responsibilities; alternative sources of funding (e.g., mandatory appropriations); and Administration and congressional priorities, among other factors. Thus, although the President's FY2019 request covered more than 30 agencies, funding for a small subset of these agencies accounted for most of the total. For example, the requested appropriations for three agencies—EPA, Forest Service, and Indian Health Service—were more than half (57.4%) of the total request. Further, three-quarters (75.5%) of the request was for these three agencies and two others, National Park Service and Indian Affairs.

For DOI agencies, the FY2019 requests ranged from $121.7 million for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to $2.70 billion for the National Park Service. The requests for 5 of the 10 agencies exceeded $1 billion. Nearly half (48.3%) of the $10.59 billion requested for DOI agencies was for two agencies—the National Park Service ($2.70 billion) and Indian Affairs ($2.41 billion).

For Related Agencies in Title III, the requested funding levels exhibited even more variation. The President sought amounts ranging from no funding for two entities—grants under National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs and the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission—to $5.42 billion for the Indian Health Service. The Forest Service was the only other agency for which more than $4 billion was requested. The next-largest request was for the Smithsonian Institution, at $957.4 million. By contrast, 19 entities each had requests of $62 million or less, including 12 with requests of less than $10 million each.

Figure 1 identifies the share of the President's FY2019 request for particular agencies in the Interior bill.

Overview of FY2019 Appropriations Compared with FY2018 Enacted Appropriations

For FY2018, the total enacted appropriation for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was $36.59 billion. This total included $35.31 billion in regular appropriations and $1.28 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief. As noted, for FY2019, the President sought $28.34 billion for agencies in the Interior bill and a discretionary cap adjustment of $1.52 billion for wildland fire suppression. Neither the House nor the Senate version of H.R. 6147 , as passed during the 115 th Congress, nor the FY2019 enacted legislation, contained the cap adjustment.

H.R. 6147 , as passed by the House on July 19, 2018, would have provided $35.31 billion for FY2019. H.R. 6147 , as passed by the Senate on August 1, 2018, would have provided $35.91 billion for FY2019.

For FY2019, the enacted appropriation for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in P.L. 116-6 was $35.61 billion. Thus, when including the supplemental disaster funding for FY2018, the President's request, House-passed bill, Senate-passed bill, and FY2019 enacted appropriation contained less overall funding for FY2019 as compared to the FY2018 total of $36.59 billion, as follows:

$8.25 billion (22.5%) less under the President's request, $1.28 billion (3.5%) less under the House-passed bill, $674.4 million (1.8%) less under the Senate-passed bill, and $975.4 million (2.7%) less under the FY2019 enacted appropriation.

However, relative to the regular FY2018 appropriation of $35.31 billion (excluding the supplemental disaster funding), for FY2019:

the President's request would have reduced funding by $6.98 billion (19.8%), the House-passed bill would have provided nearly level appropriations, with a decrease of $5.5 million (<0.1%), the Senate-passed bill would have increased funding by $601.0 million (1.7%), and the FY2019 enacted appropriation provided an increase of $300.0 million (0.8%).

Figure 2 depicts the regular appropriations enacted for FY2018, requested by the President for FY2019, in H.R. 6147 (115 th Congress) as passed by the House for FY2019, in H.R. 6147 (115 th Congress) as passed by the Senate for FY2019, and enacted for FY2019 in Division E of P.L. 116-6 . It shows the appropriations contained in each of the three main appropriations titles of the Interior bill—Title I (DOI), Title II (EPA), and Title III (Related Agencies)—and in the general provisions in Title IV. For FY2018 enacted appropriations, it also depicts the emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief. Table 1 , at the end of this report, lists the appropriations for each agency that were enacted for FY2018, requested by the President for FY2019, passed by the House in H.R. 6147 (115 th Congress) for FY2019, passed by the Senate in H.R. 6147 (115 th Congress) for FY2019, and enacted for FY2019 in Division E of P.L. 116-6 . It also contains the percentage changes between FY2018 enacted appropriations and FY2019 enacted appropriations.

There are many differences among the FY2018 enacted appropriations and the FY2019 funding requested by the President, passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and enacted. Selected agencies and programs are highlighted below, among the many of interest to Members of Congress, stakeholders, and the public. For the selected agencies and programs, the discussions below briefly compare FY2018 regular annual funding with FY2019 levels requested by the Administration, approved by the House in H.R. 6147 (115 th Congress), approved by the Senate in H.R. 6147 (115 th Congress), and enacted for FY2019 in Division E of P.L. 116-6 . Including FY2018 emergency supplemental appropriations would result in different comparisons for some of the agencies and programs covered below.

The Administration sought a decrease of 23.2% from the FY2018 appropriation ($1.33 billion) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The request contained lower funding for many BLM accounts and programs, including those for overall Management of Lands and Resources, and Land Acquisition by the agency. The House and Senate versions of the bill included increased appropriations for BLM for FY2019, of 4.1% and 0.9% respectively, with additional funds for the Management of Lands and Resources. The Senate also would have provided an increase for Land Acquisition, but the House would have reduced funds for that purpose. Further, the Administration proposed a budget restructuring within the Management of Lands and Resources account, to increase flexibility, cost savings, and program integration. The Senate, but not the House, would have adopted this restructuring.

The FY2019 enacted appropriation of $1.35 billion was a $14.3 million (1.1%) increase over the FY2018 appropriation. It reflected the President's proposed restructuring in the Management of Lands and Resources account, and increased funds for that account and for Land Acquisition, with level funding for other accounts.

For FY2018, EPA received $8.06 billion in Title II of the regular appropriations law, and another $766.0 million in Title IV of that law, for an FY2018 regular appropriation of $8.82 billion. This discussion generally reflects funding in Title II only. Relative to the FY2018 appropriations in Title II only ($8.06 billion), the EPA would have received a decrease under the Administration's request (23.2%) and under the House-passed bill (1.6%), but it would have received level funding under the Senate-passed bill. The request contained lower funding for several accounts, among them Science and Technology, Environmental Programs and Management (including geographic programs), and State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG, including categorical grants). However, the Administration sought level funding in the STAG account for capitalization grants to states for wastewater infrastructure projects through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and for drinking water infrastructure grants to states through the Drinking Water SRF. Moreover, the Administration asked for increased appropriations for two accounts, Buildings and Facilities and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program.

The House and Senate versions of the bill both supported level (or nearly level) funding for some accounts and programs (e.g., the Clean Water SRF and the Drinking Water SRF). However, whereas the Senate would have provided level funding for many accounts, the House more often supported decreases (e.g., Science and Technology, and Environmental Programs and Management) or increases (e.g., Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program, and Hazardous Substance Superfund).

For FY2019, EPA received $8.06 billion in Title II of the regular appropriations law, and another $791.0 million in Title IV of that law, for an FY2019 regular appropriation of $8.85 billion. This was a $25.0 million (0.3%) increase over the FY2018 total appropriation. The $8.06 billion enacted for FY2019 in Title II was equal to the FY2018 appropriation for Title II (and the Senate-passed level for FY2019). The FY2019 enacted appropriation included funding at the FY2018 level for each EPA account except for STAG, which increased by $42.9 million (1.2%) over FY2018. There was a corresponding change in rescissions, with $42.9 million more in (account-specific) rescissions enacted in FY2019 than in FY2018.

For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), differing amounts of reductions from the FY2018 level ($1.59 billion) were proposed for FY2019 by the Administration (23.1%), House (0.9%), and Senate (1.2%). The Administration sought to reduce funding for the Resource Management account overall, with cuts in programs such as ecological services, habitat conservation, and fish and aquatic conservation, and to eliminate funding for programs including cooperative landscape conservation and science support. The House and Senate versions of the bill would have increased funding for Resource Management, with little change for many programs relative to FY2018, and would have retained funding for cooperative landscape conservation and science support. Citing "higher priorities," the Administration also proposed eliminating discretionary appropriations for two other FWS accounts—the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. The House- and Senate-passed bills retained discretionary funding for these accounts. Further, the Administration proposed relatively large reductions from the FY2018 level for the Land Acquisition (89.1%) and Construction (79.3%) accounts. The House and Senate supported smaller reductions for both accounts.

The FY2019 enacted appropriation of $1.58 billion was $17.0 million (1.1%) less than the FY2018 appropriation. Like the House-passed and Senate-passed bills, the FY2019 appropriation increased funding for Resource Management, and retained funding for the cooperative landscape conservation and science support programs funded by this account. Similarly, the enacted appropriation included funding for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. It also increased Land Acquisition, reduced Construction, and rescinded $15.0 million from Coastal Impact Assistance Program Grants.

For FY2019, the Administration requested 21.5% less for the Forest Service (FS) than was enacted for FY2018 ($5.93 billion). Within the overall reduction, the President proposed decreases for each FS account, including 81.6% less for Capital Improvement and Maintenance, 47.7% less for State and Private Forestry, and 10.6% less for the National Forest System. The Administration also sought to eliminate funding for some programs, including Land Acquisition (from the Land and Water Conservation Fund), Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration, and certain cooperative forestry programs such as Forest Legacy. For FY2019, the House and Senate bills would have provided overall increases for the FS of 3.3% and 6.1% respectively, with increases for some FS accounts and retention of programs the Administration sought to eliminate. The House and Senate supported differing levels of appropriations for major FS accounts, with the House approving higher amounts than the Senate for the National Forest System and Capital Improvement and Maintenance and the Senate approving higher amounts than the House for Land Acquisition and Wildland Fire Management, among other differences.

For FY2019, the FS enacted appropriation of $6.09 billion was $152.5 million (2.6%) higher than the FY2018 appropriation. It included higher funding than enacted for FY2018 for all major accounts except Capital Improvement and Maintenance (which decreased by 0.7%). For Wildland Fire Management, the FY2019 appropriation of $3.00 billion was 4.3% higher than the FY2018 appropriation, nearly the same as the House-passed level, and 7.0% less than the Senate-passed amount. The FS total FY2019 appropriation also included funding for programs the Administration had sought to eliminate, as noted above.

The Administration's FY2019 requested appropriation for Indian Affairs (IA) was 21.2% less than the FY2018 enacted amount ($3.06 billion). Most Indian programs would have been funded at lower levels, including human services, natural resources management, and public safety and justice. Education and construction (including construction of educational facilities) were among the largest dollar decreases in the budget request. The House- and Senate-passed measures contained overall increases of 1.3% and 0.4% respectively for IA, with relatively stable funding for many programs and activities as compared with FY2018 enacted amounts.

Enacted appropriations of $3.08 billion for FY2019 were a $17.5 million (0.6%) increase over FY2018 appropriations. For FY2019, most programs received relatively small dollar increases or stable funding as compared with FY2018. Changes relative to FY2018 included an increase of 1.5% for public safety and justice and of 2.3% for contract support costs, and a decrease of 9.7% for Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians. The appropriation for education programs declined 1.1% from FY2018 to FY2019. This was primarily due to the inclusion of a one-time increase of $16.9 million for FY2018 for the Haskell Indian Nations University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, to convert these postsecondary institutions to forward funding to align with the school year funding cycle.

Under the Administration's FY2019 request, the Indian Health Service (IHS) would have received 2.1% less than the FY2018 appropriation ($5.54 billion). The overall decrease was composed of a variety of program reductions and increases. For example, the Administration proposed cutting the Indian Health Facilities account (41.7%), including for maintenance and improvement of facilities and construction of both health care and sanitation facilities, and proposed no funding for programs including the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, health education, and community health representatives. However, the Administration requested additional monies for clinical services including hospital and health clinics, mental health, and alcohol and substance abuse, and for contract support costs (to help tribes pay the costs of administering IHS-funded programs). The Administration also sought to fund the Special Diabetes Program for Indians through discretionary appropriations; currently the program has a direct appropriation.

The House and Senate bills would have approved increases of 6.7% and 4.2% respectively over FY2018 appropriations for IHS. Both chambers included higher funding for clinical services than enacted for FY2018 and requested by the Administration for FY2019, and both agreed with the Administration's proposed level for contract support costs. The House, but not the Senate, included appropriations for the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund and would have provided more than the FY2018 appropriation for the fund. Both chambers sought to retain funding for health education and community health representatives. Both chambers also supported level funding for most Indian Health Facilities programs but provided additional funds for facilities and environmental health support. Neither chamber sought to fund the Special Diabetes Program for Indians through discretionary appropriations.

The FY2019 enacted appropriation of $5.80 billion was an increase of $266.5 million (4.8%) for IHS over FY2018 appropriations. The total included level or increased funds for most programs and activities, for instance, with increases for clinical services and contract support costs. The enacted total included funding for programs the President sought to eliminate, including the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, health education, and community health representatives. Similar to the House-passed and Senate-passed bills, the FY2019 enacted appropriation did not fund the Special Diabetes Program for Indians through discretionary appropriations, and provided level funding for most Indian Health Facilities programs except for facilities and environmental health support, which received an increase.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has funded land acquisition for the four main federal land management agencies, a matching grant program to states to support outdoor recreation, and other purposes. For FY2019, the Administration did not seek discretionary appropriations for most programs that received appropriations from the LWCF in FY2018, and proposed an overall reduction of $12.9 million due to rescisssions of prior-year funds for some program components. In contrast, the House and Senate would have provided LWCF funding for the same programs as in FY2018, including land acquisition by the federal land management agencies. However, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill contained reductions from the FY2018 level ($425.0 million), of 15.2% and 3.8% respectively. In contrast, the FY2019 enacted appropriation of $435.0 million was a $10.0 million (2.4%) increase over FY2018.

For FY2019, the Administration requested 15.6% less for the National Park Service (NPS) than was enacted for FY2018 ($3.20 billion). Within the overall reduction, the President proposed cuts for each NPS account and many programs, including Construction, the Historic Preservation Fund, facility operations and maintenance, and heritage partnership programs. The President proposed the elimination of discretionary funding for other programs, including grants to states for outdoor recreation, line item acquisitions by the NPS, and the Centennial Challenge Program (a matching grant program to encourage donations).

The House and Senate would have approved overall increases of 1.9% and 0.5% respectively for the NPS for FY2019. Their bills sought to fund many accounts and programs at levels similar to those enacted for FY2018. However, both chambers included increases for some programs (e.g., facility operations and maintenance) and reductions for other programs (e.g., line-item acquisitions). In still other cases, the chambers differed as to the direction of the change, for instance, with the House supporting an increase for the Historic Preservation Fund and the Senate approving a decrease.

For FY2019, the enacted appropriation was $3.22 billion, which was $20.5 million (0.6%) more than the FY2018 appropriation. The total reflected various increases for several accounts, namely the Operation of the National Park System, National Recreation and Preservation, Historic Preservation Fund, and Construction. However, FY2019 funds were lower than FY2018 appropriations for two other accounts: the Centennial Challenge, and Land Acquisition and State Assistance account, due to a decrease for land acquisition by the NPS.

The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) would have been reduced from the FY2018 level ($553.2 million) under the President's request ($465.0 million, a 15.9% reduction). For FY2019, the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill both contained $500.0 million, a reduction of 9.6% from the FY2018 amount. In earlier action, the Senate Appropriations Committee had reported that $500.0 million was the estimate of full funding for PILT for FY2019. PILT compensates counties and local governments for nontaxable lands within their jurisdictions. The authorized level for the program is calculated under a formula that considers various factors and varies from year to year. The authorized payment is currently subject to annual appropriations.

The FY2019 appropriation for PILT was $500.0 million, a decrease of $53.2 million (9.6%) from the FY2018 level. As noted, this was the level that had been approved in the House-passed and Senate-passed bills.

For FY2019, the Smithsonian Institution (SI) would have received a decrease (8.2%) under the Administration's request, an increase (1.2%) under the House-passed bill, and essentially level funding under the Senate-passed bill as compared with the FY2018 appropriation ($1.04 billion). However, the Administration, House, and Senate all supported funding at or near the FY2018 level for most SI museums, research institutes, and other programs. A key difference was in funding for the Facilities Capital account, which includes revitalization, planning and design, and construction of facilities. The Administration requested a 29.6% decrease for this account, the Senate approved a smaller decrease of 2.7%, and the House approved an increase of 1.8%. In addition, the Administration, House, and Senate all supported an increase of 2.2% over the FY2018 level for Facilities Services, which encompasses maintenance, operation, security, and support of facilities.

For FY2019, the enacted appropriation of $1.04 billion was essentially level with the FY2018 appropriation. The FY2019 total included funding at or near the FY2018 level for most SI museums, research institutes, and other programs. An exception was an increase of 2.2% over the FY2018 level for Facilities Services, as had been recommended by the President and approved by the House and Senate. Another exception was the Facilities Capital account, which received a 2.7% overall decrease; this comprised reduced funding for planning and design, the elimination of construction monies, and additional funds for revitalization.

Relative to FY2018 appropriations ($1.15 billion), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) would have received a decrease (25.1%) under the Administration's request, an increase (2.1%) under the House-passed bill, and level funding under the Senate-passed bill. The request proposed reduced funding for all eight major USGS program areas, including ecosystems, land resources, natural hazards, and water resources. The request also would have cut most subprograms, although in a few cases it contained additional funds (e.g., for mineral and energy resources). In contrast, both chambers would have maintained level funding or would have increased appropriations for all USGS program areas except natural hazards, which would have declined by 4.8% in the House-passed bill and by 12.0% in the Senate-passed bill.

For FY2019, USGS received an appropriation of $1.16 billion, an increase of $12.1 million (1.1%) over FY2018. Of the eight major USGS program areas, five received increases, two received decreases, and one received level funding. The largest dollar and percentage increase was for energy, minerals, and environmental health, which gained $8.9 million (8.7%), primarily for mineral resources. The largest dollar and percentage decrease was for natural hazards, which was cut by $12.4 million (6.9%) for the volcano hazards subprogram.

For FY2019, the Administration proposed $3.79 billion in discretionary appropriations for Wildland Fire Management (WFM) of DOI and the FS, a 12.9% decrease from the FY2018 enacted level ($4.35 billion). However, the President also sought a $1.52 billion cap adjustment to the discretionary spending limits in law, so that funding for certain wildland fire suppression activities would not be subject to the limits. Including those funds, the total FY2019 request was $5.31 billion. This would be an increase of 22.0% over the FY2018 appropriation. The House and Senate bills contained increases of 3.1% and 12.0% respectively over the FY2018 appropriation. Neither chamber's FY2019 bill included a discretionary cap adjustment for wildland fire suppression for FY2019. However, a cap adjustment was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, and is scheduled to go into effect in FY2020. Further, the Administration, House, and Senate did not support appropriations for FY2019 for the FS or DOI FLAME accounts. The FLAME account received $342.0 million in emergency supplemental appropriations in FY2018.

For FY2019, the total appropriation for Wildland Fire Management for DOI and FS was $4.48 billion; this was $124.8 million (2.9%) more than the FY2018 appropriation. The increase over FY2018 was primarily for the FS, for suppression operations. The total appropriation consisted of $941.2 million for DOI and $3.54 for FS. The FY2019 appropriations law did not include a discretionary cap adjustment for wildland fire suppression for FY2019, as sought by the President, or funding for the DOI or FS FLAME accounts.


Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary: The Navy has been procuring Virginia (SSN-774) class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) since FY1998. The three Virginia-class boats that the Navy has requested for procurement in FY2020 would be the 31st, 32nd, and 33rd boats in the class. Virginia-class submarines are being procured under a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract covering at least 10 boats to be procured in FY2019-FY2023.

Summary: The Navy plans to build the second of the two boats procured in FY2019, the second and third boats requested for procurement in FY2020, the second of the two boats planned for procurement in FY2021, and all subsequent Virginia-class boats with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), an additional, 84-foot-long, mid-body section equipped with four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes for storing and launching additional Tomahawk missiles or other payloads. The Navy's FY2020 budget submission shows that Virginia-class boats with and without the VPM have estimated recurring unit procurement costs of roughly $3.2 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively.

Summary: The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the three Virginia-class boats requested for procurement in FY2020 at $9.274.4 (i.e., about $9.3 billion). The boats have received $1,756.9 million in prior-year "regular" advance procurement (AP) funding and $361.6 million in additional Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) AP funding for components of boats being procured under the FY2019-FY2023 MYP contract. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests the remaining $7,155.9 million in procurement funding needed to complete the boats' estimated combined procurement cost, as well as $1,887.6 million in "regular" AP funding for Virginia-class boats to be procured in future fiscal years and $882.0 million in additional EOQ AP funding for components of boats to be procured under the FY2019-FY2023 MYP contract, bringing the total amount of procurement and AP funding requested for the program in FY2020 to $9,925.5 million (i.e., about $9.9 billion), excluding outfitting and post-delivery costs.

Summary: The Navy's SSN force included 51 boats at the end of FY2018. The Navy's force-level goal for SSNs is to achieve and maintain a force of 66 boats. From the mid-2020s through the early 2030s, the number of SSNs is projected to experience a valley or trough, reaching a minimum of 42 boats in FY2027-FY2028. Some observers are concerned that this projected valley—a consequence of having procured a relatively small number of SSNs during the 1990s, in the early years of the post-Cold War era—could lead to a period of heightened operational strain for the SSN force, and perhaps a period of weakened conventional deterrence against potential adversaries such as China. The projected SSN valley was first identified by CRS in 1995 and has been discussed in CRS reports and testimony every year since then. The Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan projects that, after reaching its projected 42-boat minimum, the SSN force will increase to 66 boats by FY2048.

Summary: Issues for Congress regarding the Virginia-class program include whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's FY2020 procurement and advance procurement (AP) funding requests for the Virginia-class program; the funding profile for the third Virginia-class boat requested for procurement in FY2020; the potential industrial-base challenges of building both Columbia-class boats and Virginia-class attack submarines (SSNs) at the same time; and technical risk in the design for the Block V version of the Virginia-class program.

This report provides background information and issues for Congress on the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) program. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests $9,925.5 million (i.e., about $9.9 billion) in procurement and advance procurement (AP) funding for the program. Decisions that Congress makes on procurement of Virginia-class boats could substantially affect U.S. Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.

The Navy's Columbia (SSBN-826) class ballistic missile submarine program is discussed in another CRS report—CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke.

For an overview of the strategic and budgetary context in which the Virginia-class program and other Navy shipbuilding programs may be considered, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke.

The U.S. Navy operates three types of submarines—nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), nuclear-powered cruise missile and special operations forces (SOF) submarines (SSGNs), and nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). The SSNs are general-purpose submarines that can (when appropriately equipped and armed) perform a variety of peacetime and wartime missions, including the following:

covert intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), much of it done for national-level (as opposed to purely Navy) purposes; covert insertion and recovery of SOF (on a smaller scale than possible with the SSGNs); covert strikes against land targets with the Tomahawk cruise missiles (again on a smaller scale than possible with the SSGNs); covert offensive and defensive mine warfare; anti-submarine warfare (ASW); and anti-surface ship warfare.

During the Cold War, ASW against Soviet submarines was the primary stated mission of U.S. SSNs, although covert ISR and covert SOF insertion/recovery operations were reportedly important on a day-to-day basis as well. In the post-Cold War era, although anti-submarine warfare remained a mission, the SSN force focused more on performing the other missions noted on the list above. Due to the shift in the strategic environment in recent years from the post-Cold War era to a new situation featuring renewed great power competition, ASW against Russian and Chinese submarines has once again become a more prominent mission for U.S. Navy SSNs.

The Navy's force-level goal, released in December 2016, is to achieve and maintain a 355-ship fleet, including 66 SSNs. For a review of SSN force-level goals since the Reagan Administration, see Appendix A .

The SSN force included more than 90 boats during most of the 1980s, when plans called for achieving a 600-ship Navy including 100 SSNs. The number of SSNs peaked at 98 boats at the end of FY1987 and declined after that in a manner that roughly paralleled the decline in the total size of the Navy over the same time period. The 51 SSNs in service at the end of FY2018 included the following:

31 Los Angeles (SSN-688) class boats; 3 Seawolf (SSN-21) class boats; and 17 Virginia (SSN-774) class boats.

A total of 62 Los Angeles-class submarines, commonly called 688s, were procured between FY1970 and FY1990 and entered service between 1976 and 1996. They are equipped with four 21-inch diameter torpedo tubes and can carry a total of 26 torpedoes or Tomahawk cruise missiles in their torpedo tubes and internal magazines. The final 31 boats in the class (SSN-719 and higher) were built with an additional 12 vertical launch system (VLS) tubes in their bows for carrying and launching another 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles. The final 23 boats in the class (SSN-751 and higher) incorporate further improvements and are referred to as Improved Los Angeles class boats or 688Is. As of the end of FY2018, 31 of the 62 boats in the class had been retired.

The Seawolf class was originally intended to include about 30 boats, but Seawolf-class procurement was stopped after three boats as a result of the end of the Cold War and associated changes in military requirements and defense spending levels. The three Seawolf-class submarines are the Seawolf (SSN-21), the Connecticut (SSN-22), and the Jimmy Carter (SSN-23). SSN-21 and SSN-22 were procured in FY1989 and FY1991 and entered service in 1997 and 1998, respectively. SSN-23 was originally procured in FY1992. Its procurement was suspended in 1992 and then reinstated in FY1996. It entered service in 2005. Seawolf-class submarines are larger than Los Angeles-class boats or previous U.S. Navy SSNs. They are equipped with eight 30-inch-diameter torpedo tubes and can carry a total of 50 torpedoes or cruise missiles. SSN-23 was built to a lengthened configuration compared to the other two ships in the class.

The Virginia-class attack submarine (see Figure 1 ) was designed to be less expensive and better optimized for post-Cold War submarine missions than the Seawolf-class design. The Virginia-class design is slightly larger than the Los Angeles-class design, but incorporates newer technologies. Virginia-class boats procured in recent years cost roughly $2.8 billion each to procure, but Virginia-class boats to be procured in coming years will be built to a lengthened configuration that includes the Virginia Payload Module (see discussion below) and have an estimated unit procurement cost of roughly $3.2 billion. The first Virginia-class boat entered service in October 2004.

Table 1 shows annual numbers of Virginia-class boats procured from FY1998 (the lead boat) through FY2019, the number requested for procurement in FY2020, and the numbers projected for procurement in FY2021-FY2024 under the FY2020-FY2024 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP).

Three Boats (Rather Than Two) Requested for FY2020

The Virginia-class submarines shown in Table 1 for FY2019-FY2023, which are referred to as the Block V boats, are being procured under a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract covering those years. This is the fourth consecutive MYP contract used by the Virginia-class program—three earlier MYP contracts were used to procure the 10 Virginia-class boats shown in the table for the period FY2014-FY2018 (the Block IV boats), the 8 Virginia-class boats shown in the table for the period FY2009-FY2013 (the Block III boats), and the 5 Virginia-class boats shown in the table for the period FY2004-FY2008 (the Block II boats). The four boats shown in the table for the period FY1998-FY2002 (the Block I boats) were procured under a block buy contract, which is an arrangement somewhat similar to an MYP contract. The boat procured in FY2003 fell between the FY1998-FY2002 block buy contract and the FY2004-FY2008 MYP contract, and was contracted for separately.

Virginia-class boats are built jointly by General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI, and Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS), of Newport News, VA. The arrangement for jointly building Virginia-class boats was proposed to Congress by GD/EB, HII/NNS, and the Navy, and agreed to by Congress in 1997, as part of Congress's action on the Navy's budget for FY1998, the year that the first Virginia-class boat was procured. A primary aim of the arrangement is to minimize the cost of building Virginia-class boats at a relatively low annual rate in two shipyards (rather than entirely in a single shipyard) while preserving key submarine-construction skills at both shipyards.

Under the arrangement, GD/EB builds certain parts of each boat, HII/NNS builds certain other parts of each boat, and the yards have taken turns building the reactor compartments and performing final assembly of the boats. The arrangement has resulted in a roughly 50-50 division of Virginia-class profits between the two yards and preserves both yards' ability to build submarine reactor compartments (a key capability for a submarine-construction yard) and perform submarine final-assembly work.

Navy's Proposed Submarine Unified Build Strategy (SUBS)

Under a plan it calls the Submarine Unified Build Strategy (SUBS), the Navy plans to build Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines jointly at GD/EB and HII/NNS, with most of the work going to GD/EB. As part of this plan, the Navy plans to adjust the division of work on the Virginia-class attack submarine program so that HII/NNS would receive a larger share of the work for that program than it has received in the past.

The Navy states that it achieved a goal of reducing the procurement cost of Virginia-class submarines so that two boats could be procured in FY2012 for a combined cost of $4.0 billion in constant FY2005 dollars—a goal referred to as "2 for 4 in 12." Achieving this goal involved removing about $400 million (in constant FY2005 dollars) from the cost of each submarine. (The Navy calculated that the unit target cost of $2.0 billion in constant FY2005 dollars for each submarine translated into about $2.6 billion for a boat procured in FY2012.)

Schedule and Cost Performance on Deliveries

As noted in CRS testimony in 2014, the Virginia (SSN-774) class attack program has been cited as an example of a successful acquisition program. The program received a David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award from the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2008. Although the program experienced cost growth in its early years that was due in part to annual procurement rates that were lower than initially envisaged and challenges in restarting submarine production at Newport News Shipbuilding, the lead ship in the program was delivered within four months of the target date that had been established about a decade earlier, and until recently, ships had been delivered largely on cost and ahead of schedule.

More-Recent Reported Delays Relative to Targeted Delivery Dates

In March and April 2019, it was reported that GD/EB, HII/NNS, and their supplier firms were experiencing challenges in meeting scheduled delivery times as the Virginia-class program transitions over time from production of two "regular" Virginia-class boats per year to two VPM-equipped boats per year. As a result of these challenges, it was reported, the program has experienced months-long delays in efforts to build boats relative to their targeted delivery dates.

The VPM's vertical launch tubes are to be used to store and fire additional Tomahawk cruise missiles or other payloads, such as large-diameter unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). The four additional launch tubes in the VPM could carry a total of 28 additional Tomahawk cruise missiles (7 per tube), which would increase the total number of torpedo-sized weapons (such as Tomahawks) carried by the Virginia class design from about 37 to about 65—an increase of about 76%.

Building Virginia-class boats with the VPM is intended to compensate for a sharp loss in submarine force weapon-carrying capacity that will occur with the retirement in FY2026-FY2028 of the Navy's four Ohio-class cruise missile/special operations forces support submarines (SSGNs). Each SSGN is equipped with 24 large-diameter vertical launch tubes, of which 22 can be used to carry up to 7 Tomahawks each, for a maximum of 154 vertically launched Tomahawks per boat, or 616 vertically launched Tomahawks for the four boats. Twenty-two Virginia-class boats built with VPMs could carry 616 Tomahawks in their VPMs.

The Navy's FY2020 budget submission shows that Virginia-class boats with and without the VPM have estimated recurring unit procurement costs of roughly $3.2 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively.

The joint explanatory statement for the FY2014 DOD Appropriations Act (Division C of H.R. 3547 / P.L. 113-76 of January 17, 2014) required the Navy to submit biannual reports to the congressional defense committees describing the actions the Navy is taking to minimize costs for the VPM.

In addition to the VPM, the Navy is introducing acoustic and other improvements to the Virginia-class design that are intended to help maintain the design's superiority over Russian and Chinese submarines.

U.S. Navy submarines are built by GD/EB and HII/NNS. These are the only two shipyards in the country capable of building nuclear-powered ships. GD/EB builds submarines only, while HII/NNS also builds nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and is capable of building other types of surface ships.

In addition to GD/EB and HII/NNS, the submarine construction industrial base includes hundreds of supplier firms, as well as laboratories and research facilities, in numerous states. Much of the total material procured from supplier firms for the construction of submarines comes from sole-source suppliers. For nuclear-propulsion component suppliers, an additional source of stabilizing work is the Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier construction program. In terms of work provided to these firms, a carrier nuclear propulsion plant is roughly equivalent to five submarine propulsion plants. Much of the design and engineering portion of the submarine construction industrial base is resident at GD/EB; smaller portions are resident at HII/NNS and some of the component makers.

Table 2 shows the Navy's projection of the number of SSNs over time if the Navy's FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan were fully implemented. As can be seen in the table, the FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan would achieve the Navy's 66-boat SSN force-level goal by FY2048.

As also shown in the table, the number of SSNs is projected to experience (relative to a previous Navy SSN force-level goal of 48 boats) a valley or trough from the mid-2020s through the early 2030s, reaching a minimum of 42 boats (i.e., 24 boats, or about 36%, less than the current 66-boat force-level goal) in FY2027-FY2028. This projected valley is a consequence of having procured a relatively small number of SSNs during the 1990s, in the early years of the post-Cold War era. Some observers are concerned that this projected valley in SSN force levels could lead to a period of heightened operational strain for the SSN force, and perhaps also a period of weakened conventional deterrence against potential adversaries such as China. The projected SSN valley was first identified by CRS in 1995 and has been discussed in CRS reports and testimony every year since then. As one measure for mitigating this valley, the Navy's FY2020 budget submission proposes to refuel and extend the service life of two older Los Angeles (SSN-688) class submarines. The Navy states that this could be followed by refuelings and service life extensions for up to five more Los Angeles-class SSNs that would be funded in fiscal years beyond the FY2020-FY2024 Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP).

SSN Deployments Delayed Due to Maintenance Backlogs

In recent years, a number of the Navy's SSNs have had their deployments delayed due to maintenance backlogs at the Navy's four government-operated shipyards, which are the primary facilities for conducting depot-level maintenance work on Navy SSNs. Delays in deploying SSNs can put added operational pressure on other SSNs that are available for deployment. A November 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the issue stated:

The Navy has been unable to begin or complete the vast majority of its attack submarine maintenance periods on time resulting in significant maintenance delays and operating and support cost expenditures. GAO's analysis of Navy maintenance data shows that between fiscal year 2008 and 2018, attack submarines have incurred 10,363 days of idle time and maintenance delays as a result of delays in getting into and out of the shipyards. For example, the Navy originally scheduled the USS Boise to enter a shipyard for an extended maintenance period in 2013 but, due to heavy shipyard workload, the Navy delayed the start of the maintenance period. In June 2016, the USS Boise could no longer conduct normal operations and the boat has remained idle, pierside for over two years since then waiting to enter a shipyard…. GAO estimated that since fiscal year 2008 the Navy has spent more than $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2018 constant dollars to support attack submarines that provide no operational capability—those sitting idle while waiting to enter the shipyards, and those delayed in completing their maintenance at the shipyards.

The Navy has started to address challenges related to workforce shortages and facilities needs at the public shipyards. However, it has not effectively allocated maintenance periods among public shipyards and private shipyards that may also be available to help minimize attack submarine idle time. GAO's analysis found that while the public shipyards have operated above capacity for the past several years, attack submarine maintenance delays are getting longer and idle time is increasing. The Navy may have options to mitigate this idle time and maintenance delays by leveraging private shipyard capacity for repair work. But the Navy has not completed a comprehensive business case analysis as recommended by Department of Defense guidelines to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards. Navy leadership has acknowledged that they need to be more proactive in leveraging potential private shipyard repair capacity. Without addressing this challenge, the Navy risks continued expenditure of operating and support funding to crew, maintain, and support attack submarines that provide no operational capability because they are delayed in getting into and out of maintenance.

The House Appropriations Committee, in its report ( H.Rept. 115-769 of June 20, 2018) on the FY2019 DOD Appropriations Act ( H.R. 6157 ) stated:

The Committee recognizes that the nuclear-capable public naval shipyards are backlogged with submarine maintenance work, while private nuclear-capable shipyards have underutilized capacity. The Los Angeles (SSN–688) class submarines are especially impacted by this backlog, which significantly reduces their operational availability for missions in support of combatant commanders. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act that outlines a comprehensive, five-year submarine maintenance plan that restores submarine operational availability and fully utilizes both public and private nuclear-capable shipyards in accordance with all applicable laws. The plan should strive to provide both private and public shipyards with predictable frequency of maintenance availabilities and estimate any potential cost savings that distributing the workload may deliver. (Page 71)

A March 2019 Navy report to Congress states that in response to the above committee report language,

The Navy submitted an initial [submarine maintenance] plan in December 2018, that reflected FY 2019 budget information. The Navy has [now] updated this plan to incorporate data from the President's FY 2020 budget submitted on March 11, 2019….

… In the post-Cold War and post 9/11 era, there have been decades of decision making associated with the re-posturing of defense strategies, such as: the reduction in maintenance capacity and flexibility though Baes Realignment and Closures (BRAC), increased Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO), evolution of submarine life cycle maintenance plans, budget reductions, and budget uncertainties that have contributed to the current challenges facing the submarine fleet.

The root cause of submarine idle time and associated loss of operational availability, as discussed in the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 19-229, "Actions Needed to Address Costly Maintenance Delays Facing the Attack Submarine Fleet" (issued November 2018), is largely due to public shipyard capacity not keeping pace with growing maintenance requirements that have been building for a number of years prior to the USS BOISE (SSN 764) FY 2016 Engineered Overhaul (EOH). The workload to capacity mismatch resulted in lower priority attack submarine (SSN) availabilities (as compared to ballistic missile submarines and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers) being delivered late and a bow-waving of workload from one fiscal year to the next that could not be executed. The workload backlog exacerbated the public shipyard workload-to-capacity mismatch and contributed to an increasing trend in late SSN [maintenance] deliveries.

The Navy has taken several actions to improve the workload-to-capacity balance at the public shipyards. Notably, over 20,600 workers were hired from FY 2013 through FY 2018, which after accounting for attrition, increased total end strength from 29,400 to 36,700. However, the accelerated hiring resulted in 56 percent of the production workforce having less than five years of experience. The less experienced workforce requires a greater investment in training, as described in the Navy's Report to Congress on the Naval Shipyard Development Plan (issued March 2018), which offers some near term productivity gains. The Navy has also taken additional actions to balance workload at our public shipyards by outsourcing four submarine maintenance availabilities to the private sector and plans to outsource another two submarine availabilities to the private shipyards starting in FY 2020 and FY 2021. Additionally, to ensure on-time delivery from maintenance availabilities, availability inductions have been rescheduled to occur when the shipyards have the capacity to accomplish the availability(s) within programmed schedule durations. This necessary action to improve the on-time delivery of current maintenance availabilities has resulted in some additional submarine maintenance backlog and some accumulation of idle time. Based on actions and initiatives the Navy is currently pursuing to improve submarine operational availability and the outsourcing of two additional submarine availabilities to the private sector, the Navy assesses that the submarine idle time will be eliminated by the end of FY 2023 and the submarine maintenance backlog will be worked off by the end of FY 2023.

One issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's FY2020 procurement and advance procurement (AP) funding requests for the Virginia-class program. In considering this issue, Congress may consider several factors, including the amount of work the Navy is proposing to fund for the program in FY2020 and whether the Navy has accurately priced the work it is proposing to do in FY2020. Another element of this issue concerns the funding profile for the third Virginia-class boat requested for procurement in FY2020. This issue is discussed separately in the next section.

Funding Profile for Third Virginia-Class Boast Requested for FY2020

Another issue for Congress concerns the funding profile for the third Virginia-class boat that the Navy has requested for procurement in FY2020. As discussed earlier, Navy plans previously called for procuring two Virginia-class boats in FY2020. The third boat requested for FY2020 was added to the budget request as part of the FY2020 budget-planning cycle. The Navy states that since this third boat has not received any prior-year advance procurement (AP) funding, it would execute (i.e., be constructed) on a schedule similar to that of a boat procured in FY2023.

The Navy is proposing to fully fund the procurement of the third boat in FY2020. As discussed in Appendix B , Congress in the past has fully funded the procurement of nuclear-powered ships (specifically, aircraft carriers) for which no prior-year AP funding had been provided. Given the anticipated schedule for executing a third Virginia-class boat procured in FY2020, one alternative funding profile for this boat would be to provide AP funding for the boat in FY2020-FY2022, followed by full funding (i.e., the remainder of the boat's procurement cost, in the form of regular procurement funding) for the boat in FY2023 (or perhaps AP funding in FY2020-FY2021, followed by full funding in FY2022).

Supporters of providing only AP funding for the boat in FY2020 could argue that it would reduce FY2020 funding requirements for the Virginia-class program, which could make more FY2020 funding available for other programs, such as, for example, the LPD-17 Flight II amphibious ship program, the LHA-9 amphibious assault ship program, the Expeditionary Support Base (ESB) ship program, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, Navy aircraft or weapon acquisition programs, Navy maintenance and readiness initiatives, or other DOD programs.

Supporters of fully funding a third Virginia-class boat in FY2020 could argue that it would reduce FY2021-FY2023 funding requirements for the Virginia-class program, which could make available more funding in those years for other programs, including most of those mentioned above, as well as the Virginia-class program itself (where it could, for example, support the procurement of a third Virginia-class boat in FY2022 and/or a third Virginia-class boat in FY2023). They could also argue that fully funding the procurement of a third Virginia-class boat in FY2020 would send a signal of resolve to potential adversaries such as China, particularly since it would make FY2020 the first year since FY1989 in which three SSNs were procured in a single year.

Industrial-Base Challenges of Building Both Columbia- and Virginia-Class Boats

Another potential issue for Congress concerns the potential industrial-base challenges of building both Columbia-class boats and Virginia-class attack submarines (SSNs) at the same time. Along with continued production of Virginia-class SSNs, the Navy in FY2021 is to also begin building Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Observers have expressed concern about the industrial base's capacity for building both Virginia- and Columbia-class boats without encountering bottlenecks or other production problems in one or both of these programs. Concerns about the ability of the submarine construction industrial base to execute an eventual procurement rate of two VPM-equipped Virginia-class boats and one Columbia-class boat per year have been heightened by recent reports of challenges faced by the two submarine-construction shipyards (GD/EB and HII/NNS), as well as submarine component supplier firms in meeting scheduled delivery times for Virginia-class boats as the Virginia-class program transitions over time from production of two "regular" Virginia-class boats per year to two VPM-equipped boats per year.

Technical Risk in Virginia-Class Block V Design

Another potential issue for Congress concerns technical risk in the design for the Block V version of the Virginia-class program—the version being procured in FY2019-2023. A May 2019 GAO report—the 2019 edition of GAO's annual report surveying DOD major acquisition programs—stated the following regarding the Block V version of the Virginia-class design:

In 2019, the Navy plans to award a multibillion dollar, multiyear contract for construction of 10 Block V submarines. Under the Navy's plan, all Block V ships will include acoustic superiority improvements, while the VPM will be added starting with the second Block V submarine.

According to program officials, the design of Block V submarines will differ from Block IV by approximately 20 percent. Of this 20 percent, the program office considers 70 percent to constitute major changes. The program office plans to complete basic and functional designs for VPM by construction start—an approach consistent with best practices. However, the shipbuilder is currently behind schedule in completing detail design work, where (1) the design advances to the highest level of fidelity, (2) specific fabrication and installation instructions for the shipyard are developed, and (3) required production materials are identified. The program now plans to complete 76 percent of this work by construction start, compared to the 86 percent it initially planned, in part due to the shipbuilder's challenges in using a new design tool. Going forward, the Navy and shipbuilder will need to balance staffing levels for the remaining Block V design work with design efforts for the new Columbia class ballistic missile submarine. Construction of Block V and the Columbia class will coincide beginning in fiscal year 2021.This will require the Navy and its shipbuilder to manage staffing demands and other resources across both programs. In addition, program officials said vendor quality issues with welding on VPM have caused a 3.5-month delay in the schedule for the payload tubes for the first two submarines with VPM. The Navy plans to recover some time by accelerating tube manufacturing with a second vendor, but this approach may increase program costs.

The Block V effort is subsumed under the SSN 774 major defense acquisition program, and is not managed as a separate program. In 2015, the Office of the Secretary of Defense shifted the program's oversight to the Navy. SSN 774 had already completed its required defense acquisition system milestone reviews before Block V started, but program officials said the Navy continues to conduct regular oversight of the Block V.

In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program office provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.

Issues Raised in January 2018 DOT&E Report

Another oversight issue for Congress concerns Virginia-class program issues raised in a January 2018 report from DOD's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)—DOT&E's annual report for FY2017.

Problem with Hull Coating Reported in 2017

Another issue for Congress concerns a problem with the hull coating used on Virginia-class boats that was reported in 2017.

Another issue for Congress concerns three Virginia-class boats that were reported in 2016 to have been built with defective parts, and the operational and cost implications of this situation.

Congressional Action on FY2020 Funding Request

Table 3 summarizes congressional action on the Navy's FY2020 funding request for the Virginia-class program.

This appendix summarizes attack submarine force-level goals since the Reagan Administration (1981-1989).

The Reagan-era plan for a 600-ship Navy included an objective of achieving and maintaining a force of 100 SSNs.

The George H. W. Bush Administration's proposed Base Force plan of 1991-1992 originally called for a Navy of more than 400 ships, including 80 SSNs. In 1992, however, the SSN goal was reduced to about 55 boats as a result of a 1992 Joint Staff force-level requirement study (updated in 1993) that called for a force of 51 to 67 SSNs, including 10 to 12 with Seawolf-level acoustic quieting, by the year 2012.

The Clinton Administration, as part of its 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR) of U.S. defense policy, established a goal of maintaining a Navy of about 346 ships, including 45 to 55 SSNs. The Clinton Administration's 1997 QDR supported a requirement for a Navy of about 305 ships and established a tentative SSN force-level goal of 50 boats, "contingent on a reevaluation of peacetime operational requirements." The Clinton Administration later amended the SSN figure to 55 boats (and therefore a total of about 310 ships).

The reevaluation called for in the 1997 QDR was carried out as part of a Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) study on future requirements for SSNs that was completed in December 1999. The study had three main conclusions:

"that a force structure below 55 SSNs in the 2015 [time frame] and 62 [SSNs] in the 2025 time frame would leave the CINC's [the regional military commanders-in-chief] with insufficient capability to respond to urgent crucial demands without gapping other requirements of higher national interest. Additionally, this force structure [55 SSNs in 2015 and 62 in 2025] would be sufficient to meet the modeled war fighting requirements"; "that to counter the technologically pacing threat would require 18 Virginia class SSNs in the 2015 time frame"; and "that 68 SSNs in the 2015 [time frame] and 76 [SSNs] in the 2025 time frame would meet all of the CINCs' and national intelligence community's highest operational and collection requirements."

The conclusions of the 1999 JCS study were mentioned in discussions of required SSN force levels, but the figures of 68 and 76 submarines were not translated into official DOD force-level goals.

The George W. Bush Administration's report on the 2001 QDR revalidated the amended requirement from the 1997 QDR for a fleet of about 310 ships, including 55 SSNs. In revalidating this and other U.S. military force-structure goals, the report cautioned that as DOD's "transformation effort matures—and as it produces significantly higher output of military value from each element of the force—DOD will explore additional opportunities to restructure and reorganize the Armed Forces."

DOD and the Navy conducted studies on undersea warfare requirements in 2003-2004. One of the Navy studies—an internal Navy study done in 2004—reportedly recommended reducing the attack submarine force level requirement to as few as 37 boats. The study reportedly recommended homeporting a total of nine attack submarines at Guam and using satellites and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) to perform ISR missions now performed by attack submarines.

In March 2005, the Navy submitted to Congress a report projecting Navy force levels out to FY2035. The report presented two alternatives for FY2035—a 260-ship fleet including 37 SSNs and 4 SSGNs, and a 325-ship fleet including 41 SSNs and 4 SSGNs.

In May 2005, it was reported that a newly completed DOD study on attack submarine requirements called for maintaining a force of 45 to 50 boats.

In February 2006, the Navy proposed to maintain in coming years a fleet of 313 ships, including 48 SSNs.

Although the Navy's ship force-level goals have changed repeatedly in subsequent years, the figure of 48 SSNs remained unchanged until December 2016, when the Navy released a force-level objective for achieving and maintaining a force of 355 ships, including 66 SSNs.

This appendix presents information on some alternative profiles for funding the procurement of SSNs. These alternatives include but are not necessarily limited to the following:

two years of advance procurement (AP) funding followed by full funding —the traditional approach, under which there are two years of AP funding for the SSN's long-leadtime components, followed by the remainder of the boat's procurement funding in the year of procurement; one year of AP funding followed by full funding —one year of AP funding for the SSN's long-leadtime components, followed by the remainder of the boat's procurement funding in the year of procurement; full funding with no AP funding (single-year full funding , aka point-blank full funding ) —full funding of the SSN in the year of procurement, with no AP funding in prior years; incremental funding —partial funding of the SSN in the year of procurement, followed by one or more years of additional funding increments needed to complete the procurement cost of the ship; and advance appropriations —a form of full funding that can be viewed as a legislatively locked in form of incremental funding.

Navy testimony to Congress in early 2007, when Congress was considering the FY2008 budget, suggested that two years of AP funding are required to fund the procurement of an SSN, and consequently that additional SSNs could not be procured until FY2010 at the earliest. This testimony understated Congress's options regarding the procurement of additional SSNs in the near term. Although SSNs are normally procured with two years of AP funding (which is used primarily for financing long-leadtime nuclear propulsion components), Congress can procure an SSN without prior-year AP funding, or with only one year of AP funding. Consequently, Congress at that time had the option of procuring an additional SSN in FY2009 and/or FY2010.

Single-year full funding has been used in the past by Congress to procure nuclear-powered ships for which no prior-year AP funding had been provided. Specifically, Congress used single-year full funding in FY1980 to procure the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier CVN-71, and again in FY1988 to procure the CVNs 74 and 75. In the case of the FY1988 procurement, under the Administration's proposed FY1988 budget, CVNs 74 and 75 were to be procured in FY1990 and FY1993, respectively, and the FY1988 budget was to make the initial AP payment for CVN-74. Congress, in acting on the FY1988 budget, decided to accelerate the procurement of both ships to FY1988, and fully funded the two ships that year at a combined cost of $6.325 billion. The ships entered service in 1995 and 1998, respectively.

The existence in both FY1980 and FY1988 of a spare set of Nimitz-class reactor components was not what made it possible for Congress to fund CVNs 71, 74, and 75 with single-year full funding; it simply permitted the ships to be built more quickly. What made it possible for Congress to fund the carriers with single-year full funding was Congress's constitutional authority to appropriate funding for that purpose.

Procuring an SSN with one year of AP funding or no AP funding would not materially change the way the SSN would be built—the process would still encompass two or three years of advance work on long-leadtime components, and an additional five or six years or so of construction work on the ship itself. The outlay rate for the SSN could be slower, as outlays for construction of the ship itself would begin one or two years later than normal, and the interval between the recorded year of full funding and the year that the ship enters service would be longer than normal.

Congress in the past has procured certain ships in the knowledge that those ships would not begin construction for some time and consequently would take longer to enter service than a ship of that kind would normally require. When Congress procured two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs 72 and 73) in FY1983, and another two (CVNs 74 and 75) in FY1988, it did so in both cases in the knowledge that the second ship in each case would not begin construction until some time after the first.

Appendix C. 2006 Navy Study on Options for Mitigating Projected Valley in SSN Force Level

This appendix presents background information on a study initiated by the Navy in 2006 for mitigating the valley in the SSN force levels projected for the 2020s and 2030s. The study was completed in early 2007 and briefed to CRS and CBO on May 22, 2007. At the time of the study, the SSN force was projected to bottom out at 40 boats and then recover to 48 boats by the early 2030s. Principal points in the Navy study (which cite SSN force-level projections as understood at that time) include the following:

The day-to-day requirement for deployed SSNs is 10.0, meaning that, on average, a total of 10 SSNs are to be deployed on a day-to-day basis. The peak projected wartime demand is about 35 SSNs deployed within a certain amount of time. This figure includes both the 10.0 SSNs that are to be deployed on a day-to-day basis and 25 additional SSNs surged from the United States within a certain amount of time. Reducing Virginia-class shipyard construction time to 60 months—something that the Navy already plans to do as part of its strategy for meeting the Virginia-class cost-reduction goal (see earlier discussion on cost-reduction goal)—will increase the size of the SSN force by two boats, so that the force would bottom out at 42 boats rather than 40. If, in addition to reducing Virginia-class shipyard construction time to 60 months, the Navy also lengthens the service lives of 16 existing SSNs by periods ranging from 3 months to 24 months (with many falling in the range of 9 to 15 months), this would increase the size of the SSN force by another two boats, so that the force would bottom out at 44 boats rather than 40 boats. The total cost of extending the lives of the 16 boats would be roughly $500 million in constant FY2005 dollars. The resulting force that bottoms out at 44 boats could meet the 10.0 requirement for day-to-day deployed SSNs throughout the 2020-2033 period if, as an additional option, about 40 SSN deployments occurring in the eight-year period 2025-2032 were lengthened from six months to seven months. These 40 or so lengthened deployments would represent about one-quarter of all the SSN deployments that would take place during the eight-year period. The resulting force that bottoms out at 44 boats could not meet the peak projected wartime demand of about 35 SSNs deployed within a certain amount of time. The force could generate a total deployment of 32 SSNs within the time in question—3 boats (or about 8.6%) less than the 35-boat figure. Lengthening SSN deployments from six months to seven months would not improve the force's ability to meet the peak projected wartime demand of about 35 SSNs deployed within a certain amount of time. To meet the 35-boat figure, an additional four SSNs beyond those planned by the Navy would need to be procured. Procuring four additional SSNs would permit the resulting 48-boat force to surge an additional three SSNs within the time in question, so that the force could meet the peak projected wartime demand of about 35 SSNs deployed within a certain amount of time. Procuring one to four additional SSNs could also reduce the number of seven-month deployments that would be required to meet the 10.0 requirement for day-to-day deployed SSNs during the period 2025-2032. Procuring one additional SSN would reduce the number of seven-month deployments during this period to about 29; procuring two additional SSNs would reduce it to about 17, procuring three additional SSNs would reduce it to about 7, and procuring four additional SSNs would reduce it to 2.

The Navy added a number of caveats to these results, including but not limited to the following:

The requirement for 10.0 SSNs deployed on a day-to-day basis is a current requirement that could change in the future. The peak projected wartime demand of about 35 SSNs deployed within a certain amount of time is an internal Navy figure that reflects recent analyses of potential future wartime requirements for SSNs. Subsequent analyses of this issue could result in a different figure. The identification of 19 SSNs as candidates for service life extension reflects current evaluations of the material condition of these boats and projected use rates for their nuclear fuel cores. If the material condition of these boats years from now turns out to be worse than the Navy currently projects, some of them might no longer be suitable for service life extension. In addition, if world conditions over the next several years require these submarines to use up their nuclear fuel cores more quickly than the Navy now projects, then the amounts of time that their service lives might be extended could be reduced partially, to zero, or to less than zero (i.e., the service lives of the boats, rather than being extended, might need to be shortened). The analysis does not take into account potential rare events, such as accidents, that might force the removal of an SSN from service before the end of its expected service life. Seven-month deployments might affect retention rates for submarine personnel.