Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary: The Navy began procuring Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers, also known as Aegis destroyers, in FY1985, and a total of 82 have been procured through FY2019. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of three more DDG-51s, which would be the 83rd, 84th, and 85th ships in the class.

Summary: DDG-51s planned for procurement in FY2018-FY2022 are being procured under a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract that Congress approved as part of its action on the Navy's FY2018 budget. DDG-51s procured in FY2017 and subsequent years are being built to a new design (the Flight III DDG-51 design), which incorporates a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) or SPY-6 radar.

Summary: The Navy procured DDG-51s from FY1985 through FY2005, and resumed procuring them in FY2010. In FY2007-FY2009, during the time when the Navy was not procuring DDG-51s, the Navy procured three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers. The Navy plans no further procurement of DDG-1000s. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests $155.9 million in procurement funding to help complete the total procurement cost of the three DDG-1000 class ships.

Summary: The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the three DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY2020 at $5,463.0 million, or an average of $1,821.0 million each. The ships have received $363.7 million in prior-year Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) advance procurement (AP) funding (i.e., funding for up-front batch orders of components of DDG-51s to be procured under the FY2018-FY2022 MYP contract). The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests the remaining $5,099.3 million in procurement funding needed to complete the estimated procurement cost of the three DDG-51s, as well as $224.0 million in EOQ funding for DDG-51s to be procured in FY2021 and FY2022, bringing the total amount requested for the DDG-51 program for FY2020 to $5,323.3 million, excluding outfitting and post-delivery costs.

Summary: The Navy wants to procure the first ship of a new class of large surface combatants in FY2025. Under the Navy's plan, FY2025 would be the final year of DDG-51 procurement.

Summary: Issues for Congress for FY2019 for the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 destroyer programs include the following:

Summary: whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's FY2020 funding requests for the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs; cost, schedule, and technical risk in the Flight III DDG-51 effort; the potential impact on the DDG-51 program of a possible change in the surface force architecture; and the Navy's plan to shift the mission orientation of the DDG-1000s from an emphasis on naval surface fire support (NSFS) to an emphasis on surface strike.

This report presents background information and potential oversight issues for Congress on the Navy's Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) and Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyer programs. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of three DDG-51s. Decisions that Congress makes concerning destroyer procurement could substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.

For an overview of the strategic and budgetary context in which the DDG-51, DDG-1000, 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.

Navy's Force of Large Surface Combatants (LSCs)

Decades ago, the Navy's cruisers were considerably larger and more capable than its destroyers. In the years after World War II, however, the Navy's cruiser designs in general became smaller while its destroyer designs in general became larger. As a result, since the 1980s there has been substantial overlap in size and capability of Navy cruisers and destroyers. (The Navy's new Zumwalt [DDG-1000] class destroyers, in fact, are considerably larger than the Navy's cruisers.)

In part for this reason, the Navy now refers to its cruisers and destroyers collectively as large surface combatants (LSCs) , and distinguishes these ships from the Navy's small surface combatants (SSCs) , the term the Navy now uses to refer collectively to its frigates, Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), mine warfare ships, and patrol craft. The Navy's annual 30-year shipbuilding plan, for example, groups the Navy's surface combatants into LSCs and SSCs.

In December 2016, the Navy released a goal to achieve and maintain a Navy of 355 ships, including 104 LSCs. At the end of FY2018, the Navy's force of LSCs totaled 88 ships, including 22 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers and 66 Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers. Under the Navy's FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan, the Navy is to achieve a force of 104 large surface combatants by FY2029.

The DDG-51 program was initiated in the late 1970s. The DDG-51 ( Figure 1 ) is a multi-mission destroyer with an emphasis on air defense (which the Navy refers to as anti-air warfare, or AAW) and blue-water (mid-ocean) operations.

DDG-51s, like the Navy's 22 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers, are equipped with the Aegis combat system, an integrated ship combat system named for the mythological shield that defended Zeus. CG-47s and DDG-51s consequently are often referred to as Aegis cruisers and Aegis destroyers, respectively, or collectively as Aegis ships. The Aegis system has been updated several times over the years. Existing DDG-51s (and also some CG-47s) are being modified to receive an additional capability for ballistic missile defense (BMD) operations.

The first DDG-51 was procured in FY1985 and entered service in 1991. A total of 82 have been procured through FY2018, including 62 in FY1985-FY2005 and 20 in FY2010-FY2019. (In FY2007-FY2009, during the time when the Navy was not procuring DDG-51s, the Navy procured three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers, which are discussed below.) With a total of 82 ships funded through FY2019, the DDG-51 program is, in terms of number of hulls, one of the largest Navy shipbuilding programs since World War II.

The DDG-51 design has been modified over time. The first 28 DDG-51s (i.e., DDGs 51 through 78) are called Flight I/II DDG-51s. In FY1994, the Navy shifted DDG-51 procurement to the Flight IIA DDG-51 design, which incorporated a significant design change that included, among other things, the addition of a helicopter hangar. A total of 47 Flight IIA DDG-51s (i.e., DDG-79 through DDG-124, plus DDG-127) were procured through FY2016.

In FY2017, the Navy shifted DDG-51 procurement to the Flight III DDG-51 design, which incorporates a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) or SPY-6 radar and associated changes to the ship's electrical power and cooling systems. DDG-51s procured in FY2017 and subsequent years (i.e., DDGs 125 and higher, except for DDG-127 noted above) are to be Flight III DDG-51s.

As part of its action on the Navy's FY2018 budget, Congress granted the Navy authority to use a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract for DDG-51s planned for procurement in FY2018-FY2022. This is the fourth MYP contract for the DDG-51 program—previous DDG-51 MYP contracts covered DDG-51s procured in FY2013-FY2017, FY2002-FY2005, and FY1998-FY2001.

Shipbuilders, Combat System Lead, and Radar Makers

DDG-51s are built by General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed is the lead contractor for the Aegis system installed on all DDG-51s. The SPY-1 radar—the primary radar for the Aegis system on Flight I/II and Flight IIA DDG-51s—is made by Lockheed. The AMDR—the primary radar for the Aegis system on Flight III DDG-51s—is made by Raytheon.

Modernization and Service Life Extension

The Navy is modernizing its existing DDG-51s (and its CG-47s) so as to maintain their mission and cost-effectiveness out to the end of their projected service lives. In April 2018, the Navy announced that it wants to extend the service lives of all DDG-51s to 45 years—an increase of 5 or 10 years over previous plans to operate DDG-51s to age 35 or 40. Doing this, the Navy has said, will permit the Navy to achieve a total of 355 ships by 2034, or about 20 years earlier than under the FY2019 budget submission, although the 355-ship fleet of the 2030s would have more destroyers and fewer ships of other kinds (including attack submarines and aircraft carriers) than called for in the 355-ship force-level goal.

Older CRS reports provide additional historical and background information on the DDG-51 program.

In FY2007-FY2009, during the time when the Navy was not procuring DDG-51s, the Navy procured three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers. The Navy plans no further procurement of DDG-1000s. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests $155.9 million in procurement funding to help complete the total procurement cost of the three DDG-1000 class ships.

The DDG-1000 is a multi-mission destroyer with an originally intended emphasis on naval surface fire support (NSFS) and operations in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters. Consistent with that mission orientation, the ship was designed with two new-design 155mm guns called Advanced Gun Systems (AGSs). The AGSs were to fire a new 155mm, gun-launched, rocket-assisted guided projectile called the Long-Range Land-Attack Projectile (LRLAP, pronounced LUR-lap). DDG-1000s are designed carry 600 LRLAP rounds (300 for each gun), and to have additional LRLAP rounds brought aboard the ship while the guns are firing, which would create what Navy officials called an "infinite magazine." In November 2016, however, it was reported that the Navy had decided to stop procuring LRLAP projectiles because the projected unit cost of each projectile had risen to at least $800,000. The Navy began exploring options for procuring a less expensive (and less capable) replacement munition for the AGSs.

The Navy to date has not announced a replacement munition for the AGSs. In the meantime, it was reported in December 2017 that, due to shifts in the international security environment and resulting shifts in Navy mission needs, the mission orientation of the DDG-1000s will be shifted from an emphasis on NSFS to an emphasis on surface strike, meaning the use of missiles to attack surface ships and perhaps also land targets.

Under this new plan, the mix of missiles carried in the 80 vertical launch system (VLS) tubes of each DDG-1000 may now feature a stronger emphasis on anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles missiles. The two AGSs on each DDG-1000 will, for the time being at least, remain for the most part dormant, pending a final decision on whether to procure a replacement munition for the AGSs (which would require modifying the AGSs and their below-deck munition-handling equipment, since both were designed specifically for LRLAP), or instead pursue another option, such as removing the AGSs and their below-deck equipment and replacing them with additional VLS tubes.

For additional background information on the DDG-1000 program, see the Appendix .

Surface Combatant Construction Industrial Base

All cruisers, destroyers, and frigates procured since FY1985 have been built at GD/BIW and HII/Ingalls. Both yards have long histories of building larger surface combatants. Construction of Navy surface combatants in recent years has accounted for virtually all of GD/BIW's ship-construction work and for a significant share of HII/Ingalls' ship-construction work. (HII/Ingalls also builds amphibious ships for the Navy and cutters for the Coast Guard.) Navy surface combatants are overhauled, repaired, and modernized at GD/BIW, HII/Ingalls, and other U.S. shipyards.

Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are generally considered the two leading Navy surface combatant radar makers and combat system integrators. Lockheed is the lead contractor for the DDG-51 combat system (the Aegis system), while Raytheon is the lead contractor for the DDG-1000 combat system, the core of which is called the Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCE-I). Lockheed has a share of the DDG-1000 combat system, and Raytheon has a share of the DDG-51 combat system. Lockheed, Raytheon, and Northrop competed to be the maker of the AMDR to be carried by the Flight III DDG-51. On October 10, 2013, the Navy announced that it had selected Raytheon to be the maker of the AMDR.

The surface combatant construction industrial base also includes hundreds of additional firms that supply materials and components. The financial health of Navy shipbuilding supplier firms has been a matter of concern in recent years, particularly since some of them are the sole sources for what they make for Navy surface combatants. Several Navy-operated laboratories and other facilities support the Aegis system and other aspects of the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs.

The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget also requests $155.9 million in procurement funding to help complete the total procurement cost of the three DDG-1000 class ships.

One issue for Congress for FY2020 is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's FY2020 funding requests for the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs. In considering this issue, Congress may consider, among other things, whether the Navy has accurately priced the work it is proposing to fund for FY2020.

Cost, Technical, and Schedule Risk in Flight III DDG-51 Effort

Another oversight issue for Congress concerns cost, technical, and schedule risk for the Flight III DDG-51.

An October 2018 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the cost of the Navy's shipbuilding programs stated the following about the Flight III DDG-51:

To meet combatant commanders' goal of improving future ballistic missile defense capabilities beyond those provided by existing DDG-51s—and to replace 15 Ticonderoga class cruisers when they are retired in the 2020s—the Navy plans to substantially modify the design of the DDG-51 Flight IIA destroyer to create a Flight III configuration. That modification would incorporate the new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), now under development, which will be larger and more capable than the radar on current DDG-51s. For the AMDR to operate effectively in the new Flight III configuration, however, the ships must have a greater capacity to generate electrical power and cool major systems.

With those improvements incorporated into the design of the Flight III and the associated increases in the ships' displacement, CBO expects that the average cost per ship over the entire production run would be $1.8 billion in 2018 dollars—about 15 percent more than the Navy's estimate of $1.6 billion. Costs could be higher or lower than CBO's estimate, however, depending on the eventual cost and complexity of the AMDR and the associated changes to the ship's design to integrate the new radar.

A May 2019 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessing selected DOD acquisition programs stated the following in its assessment of the Flight III DDG-51:

The Navy and the shipbuilders completed Flight III detail design activities in December 2017. As compared to Flight IIA, the Flight III design included considerable changes to the ship's hull, mechanical, and electrical systems to incorporate the AMDR program's SPY-6 radar, and changes to restore ship weight and stability safety margins. To reduce technical risk, the Navy plans to field all but one—the SPY-6 radar—of the program's four mature critical technologies on other ship classes before integration with Flight III. In 2018, however, the Navy identified software-related deficiencies affecting SPY-6 that delayed delivery of a radar array for power and integration testing with the Aegis combat system by at least 1 year. Despite these delays, the Navy plans to complete testing, install the radar on the ship, and activate the combat system for shipboard testing by January 2022.

The Navy expects to complete a draft test and evaluation master plan for Flight III by early 2022. The Navy and the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation continue to disagree on whether the use of a self-defense test ship equipped with Aegis and the SPY-6 radar is necessary to validate performance during operational test and evaluation….

We provided a draft of this assessment to the program office for review and comment. The program office provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. The program office said that it has delivered 67 DDG 51 class ships since its inception in 1985 and the class remains in serial production at both new construction shipyards.

Regarding the AMDR specifically, the report stated the following:

Technology Maturity and Design Stability

The program office reported that AMDR's four critical technologies are mature—although we disagree—and that the system design is stable. Since our 2018 assessment, the program office has further demonstrated the radar system's performance and capabilities through live testing and simulation. However, based on industry best practices, the program cannot fully demonstrate all critical technologies until the Navy tests them in their realistic, at-sea environment with the Aegis combat system. According to the AMDR program schedule, such testing will occur in 2023 during operational testing with a DDG 51 Flight III ship. Until the Navy completes this testing, the program's design stability remains at risk for disruption. Specifically, any performance deficiencies the Navy discovers during at-sea testing could require it to revise existing design drawings to remedy issues.

As part of developmental testing, the program office tested a full-scale, single-face radar array at the Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) beginning in September 2016. The program office successfully completed several live ballistic missile defense, anti-air, and anti-surface warfare tests. However, in March 2018, the array failed a ballistic missile test because of a defective software update that caused the array to stop tracking a live target. Officials said a software update corrected the issue and they verified the array's performance through a successful retest in January 2019. Officials said the single-face array, originally scheduled to support Aegis combat system equipment testing, will undergo additional testing at PMRF through 2019. As a result, the Navy has revised the acquisition schedule and will instead divert the delivery of a new array to support land-based Aegis combat system equipment testing sometime in 2019.

The program has completed software development to support core radar capabilities and will continue to develop radar updates to support system improvements, cybersecurity, and combat system integration through 2021. In parallel to the radar's software development, significant software development remains to integrate AMDR with the Aegis combat system. Program officials said this software development must complete before both systems can be fully integrated and tested. While the Navy plans to test the radar and initial Aegis combat system software at a land-based site, the Navy will not test the radar and final Aegis combat system until both are installed on the lead ship. Any issues identified after the systems are installed on the lead ship could require retrofits to the radar or ship.

Nearly 18 months after entering production, the program has not demonstrated that all of its critical manufacturing processes are in statistical control. The program reported that it exercised a contract option for the fourth low-rate initial production unit in April 2018 and was authorized to procure five additional low-rate production units in February 2019. However, in August 2018, the contractor reported early cost growth and schedule variance for the first three low-rate production units because of increased material costs and other production delays. Officials said the delays are partly due to a problem with a digital receiver component, which the contractor is testing. As a result, contractor delivery of the first production radar is at risk of delay from December 2019 to April 2020.

The AMDR program office plans to procure more than two-thirds of its 22 total radars prior to completing operational testing. The Navy deliberately planned for AMDR to begin production prior to the start of Aegis upgrade software development to allow time for key radar technologies to mature and for the design to stabilize. However, this concurrency means any deficiencies identified during combat system integration or operational testing may lead to retrofitting after production is underway or complete for many of the radars. Any required retrofitting is likely to increase program costs or delay radar deliveries.

DOD's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has yet to approve the AMDR Test and Evaluation Master Plan. DOT&E stated that the proposed test approach for the AMDR and DDG 51 Flight III programs does not provide realistic operational conditions without the use of an AMDR- and Aegis-equipped unmanned self-defense test ship. Because the Navy has elected not to request funds for a test ship, DOT&E and the Navy are revising the DDG 51 Flight III operational test strategy to include AMDR operational requirements and an updated simulation strategy. DOT&E cautioned, however, that DDG 51 Flight III's self-defense and survivability capabilities will not be fully known until the program completes operational testing.

Program Office Comments and GAO Response

We provided a draft of this assessment to the program office for review and comment. In its comments, the program office disagreed with our assessment of the program's technology maturity, stating that combat system testing is not required to demonstrate mature radar technologies since the technologies have been tested and proven at the land-based PMRF site. We disagree. The PMRF site does not provide a realistic, at-sea environment to test the fit and function of the radar and combat system on a ship.

Potential Change in Surface Force Architecture

Another issue for Congress concerns the potential impact on the DDG-51 program of a possible change in the surface force architecture. The Navy's current force-level goal of 355 ships, including 104 large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers), is the result of a Force Structure Analysis (FSA) that the Navy conducted in 2016. The Navy conducts a new or updated FSA every few years, and it is currently conducting a new FSA that is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2019. Navy officials have suggested that the Navy in coming years may shift to a new surface force architecture that will include a smaller proportion of large surface combatants, a larger proportion of small surface combatants, and a third tier of numerous unmanned surface vehicles (USVs). Some observers believe the results of the new FSA may reflect this potential new surface force architecture.

Figure 2 shows a Navy briefing slide depicting the potential new surface force architecture, with each sphere representing a manned ship or USV. Consistent with Figure 2 , the Navy's current 355-ship goal calls for a Navy with twice as many large surface combatants (104) as small surface combatants (52). Figure 2 suggests that the potential new surface force architecture could lead to the obverse—a planned force mix that calls for twice as many small surface combatants than large surface combatants—along with the new third tier of USVs.

A January 15, 2019, press report states:

The Navy plans to spend this year taking the first few steps into a markedly different future, which, if it comes to pass, will upend how the fleet has fought since the Cold War. And it all starts with something that might seem counterintuitive: It's looking to get smaller.

"Today, I have a requirement for 104 large surface combatants in the force structure assessment; [and] I have [a requirement for] 52 small surface combatants," said Surface Warfare Director Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall. "That's a little upside down. Should I push out here and have more small platforms? I think the future fleet architecture study has intimated 'yes,' and our war gaming shows there is value in that."

An April 8, 2019, press report states that Navy discussions about the future surface fleet include

the upcoming construction and fielding of the [FFG(X)] frigate, which [Vice Admiral Bill Merz, the deputy chief of naval operations for warfare systems] said is surpassing expectations already in terms of the lethality that industry can put into a small combatant.

"The FSA may actually help us on, how many (destroyers) do we really need to modernize, because I think the FSA is going to give a lot of credit to the frigate—if I had a crystal ball and had to predict what the FSA was going to do, it's going to probably recommend more small surface combatants, meaning the frigate … and then how much fewer large surface combatants can we mix?" Merz said.

An issue the Navy has to work through is balancing a need to have enough ships and be capable enough today, while also making decisions that will help the Navy get out of the top-heavy surface fleet and into a better balance as soon as is feasible.

"You may see the evolution over time where frigates start replacing destroyers, the Large Surface Combatant [a future cruiser/destroyer-type ship] starts replacing destroyers, and in the end, as the destroyers blend away you're going to get this healthier mix of small and large surface combatants," he said—though the new FSA may shed more light on what that balance will look like and when it could be achieved.

Another potential oversight issue for Congress for FY2019 concerns the Navy's plan to shift the mission orientation of the DDG-1000s from an emphasis on NSFS to an emphasis on surface strike. Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:

What is the Navy's analytical basis for shifting the ships' mission orientation? What are the potential costs of implementing this shift? How much of these costs are in the Navy's FY2019 budget submission? How cost-effective will it be to operate and support DDG-1000s as ships with an emphasis on surface strike? When does the Navy plan to decide on whether to procure a replacement munition for the ships' AGSs, or instead pursue another option, such as removing the AGSs and their below-deck equipment and installing additional VLS tubes? What would be the cost of the latter option, and how many additional VLS tubes could be installed? If the ships will operate with their AGSs for the most part dormant, to what degree will that reduce the return on investment (ROI) involved in developing, procuring, operating, and sporting the DDG-1000s?

Summary of Congressional Action on FY2020 Funding Request

Table 1 summarizes congressional action on the Navy's FY2020 procurement funding requests for the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs.

Appendix. Additional Background Information on DDG-1000 Program

This appendix presents additional background information on the DDG-1000 program.

The DDG-1000 program was initiated in the early 1990s. The DDG-1000 ( Figure A-1 ) is a multi-mission destroyer with an originally intended emphasis on naval surface fire support (NSFS) and operations in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters. (NSFS is the use of naval guns to provide fire support for friendly forces operating ashore.)

The DDG-1000 was originally intended to replace, in a technologically more modern form, the large-caliber naval gun fire capability that the Navy lost when it retired its Iowa-class battleships in the early 1990s, to improve the Navy's general capabilities for operating in defended littoral waters, and to introduce several new technologies that would be available for use on future Navy ships. The DDG-1000 was also intended to serve as the basis for a planned cruiser called CG(X) that was subsequently canceled.

The DDG-1000 is to have a reduced-size crew of 175 sailors (147 to operate the ship, plus a 28-person aviation detachment), compared to roughly 300 on the Navy's Aegis destroyers and cruisers, so as to reduce its operating and support (O&S) costs. The ship incorporates a significant number of new technologies, including an integrated electric-drive propulsion system and automation technologies enabling its reduced-sized crew.

With an estimated full load displacement of 15,612 tons, the DDG-1000 design is roughly 64% larger than the Navy's current 9,500-ton Aegis cruisers and destroyers, and larger than any Navy destroyer or cruiser since the nuclear-powered cruiser Long Beach (CGN-9), which was procured in FY1957.

The first two DDG-1000s were procured in FY2007 and split-funded (i.e., funded with two-year incremental funding) in FY2007-FY2008; the Navy's FY2019 budget submission estimates their combined procurement cost at $9,242.3 million. The third DDG-1000 was procured in FY2009 and split-funded in FY2009-FY2010; the Navy's FY2019 budget submission estimates its procurement cost at $3,789.9 million.

The first DDG-1000 was commissioned into service on October 15, 2016, although its delivery date was revised in the Navy's FY2018 budget submission to May 2018, and revised further in the Navy's FY2019 budget submission to December 2018, creating an unusual situation in which a ship was commissioned into service more than two years prior to its delivery date. The delivery dates for the second and third ships were revised in the Navy's FY2018 budget submission to May 2020 and December 2021, respectively, and were revised further in the Navy's FY2019 budget submission to September 2020 and September 2022, respectively.

The program known today as the DDG-1000 program was announced on November 1, 2001, when the Navy stated that it was replacing a destroyer-development effort called the DD-21 program, which the Navy had initiated in the mid-1990s, with a new Future Surface Combatant Program aimed at developing and acquiring a family of three new classes of surface combatants:

a destroyer called DD(X) for the precision long-range strike and naval gunfire mission; a cruiser called CG(X) for the air defense and ballistic missile mission; and a smaller combatant called the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to counter submarines, small surface attack craft (also called "swarm boats"), and mines in heavily contested littoral (near-shore) areas.

On April 7, 2006, the Navy announced that it had redesignated the DD(X) program as the DDG-1000 program. The Navy also confirmed in that announcement that the first ship in the class, DDG-1000, is to be named the Zumwalt , in honor of Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, the Chief of Naval operations from 1970 to 1974. The decision to name the first ship after Zumwalt was made by the Clinton Administration in July 2000, when the program was still called the DD-21 program.

The DDG-1000 incorporates a significant number of new technologies, including a wave-piercing, tumblehome hull design for reduced detectability, a superstructure made partly of large sections of composite (i.e., fiberglass-like) materials rather than steel or aluminum, an integrated electric-drive propulsion system, a total-ship computing system for moving information about the ship, automation technologies enabling its reduced-sized crew, a dual-band radar, a new kind of vertical launch system (VLS) for storing and firing missiles, and two copies of a new 155mm gun called the Advanced Gun System (AGS).

Shipbuilders and Combat System Prime Contractor

GD/BIW is the builder for all three DDG-1000s, with some portions of each ship being built by HII/Ingalls for delivery to GD/BIW. Raytheon is the prime contractor for the DDG-1000's combat system (its collection of sensors, computers, related software, displays, and weapon launchers).

Under a DDG-1000 acquisition strategy approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L) on February 24, 2004, the first DDG-1000 was to have been built by HII/Ingalls, the second ship was to have been built by GD/BIW, and contracts for building the first six were to have been equally divided between HII/Ingalls and GD/BIW.

In February 2005, Navy officials announced that they would seek approval from USD AT&L to instead hold a one-time, winner-take-all competition between HII/Ingalls and GD/BIW to build all DDG-1000s. On April 20, 2005, the USD AT&L issued a decision memorandum deferring this proposal, stating in part, "at this time, I consider it premature to change the shipbuilder portion of the acquisition strategy which I approved on February 24, 2004."

Several Members of Congress also expressed opposition to the Navy's proposal for a winner-take-all competition. Congress included a provision (§1019) in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2005 ( H.R. 1268 / P.L. 109-13 of May 11, 2005) prohibiting a winner-take-all competition. The provision effectively required the participation of at least one additional shipyard in the program but did not specify the share of the program that is to go to the additional shipyard.

On May 25, 2005, the Navy announced that, in light of Section 1019 of P.L. 109-13 , it wanted to shift to a "dual-lead-ship" acquisition strategy, under which two DDG-1000s would be procured in FY2007, with one to be designed and built by HII/Ingalls and the other by GD/BIW.

Section 125 of the FY2006 defense authorization act ( H.R. 1815 / P.L. 109-163 ) again prohibited the Navy from using a winner-take-all acquisition strategy for procuring its next-generation destroyer. The provision again effectively requires the participation of at least one additional shipyard in the program but does not specify the share of the program that is to go to the additional shipyard.

On November 23, 2005, the USD AT&L granted Milestone B approval for the DDG-1000, permitting the program to enter the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. As part of this decision, the USD AT&L approved the Navy's proposed dual-lead-ship acquisition strategy and a low rate initial production quantity of eight ships (one more than the Navy subsequently planned to procure).

On February 14, 2008, the Navy awarded contract modifications to GD/BIW and HII/Ingalls for the construction of the two lead ships. The awards were modifications to existing contracts that the Navy has with GD/BIW and HII/Ingalls for detailed design and construction of the two lead ships. Under the modified contracts, the line item for the construction of the dual lead ships is treated as a cost plus incentive fee (CPIF) item.

Until July 2007, it was expected that HII/Ingalls would be the final-assembly yard for the first DDG-1000 and that GD/BIW would be the final-assembly yard for the second. On September 25, 2007, the Navy announced that it had decided to build the first DDG-1000 at GD/BIW, and the second at HII/Ingalls.

On January 12, 2009, it was reported that the Navy, HII/Ingalls, and GD/BIW in the fall of 2008 began holding discussions on the idea of having GD/BIW build both the first and second DDG-1000s, in exchange for HII/Ingalls receiving a greater share of the new DDG-51s that would be procured under the Navy's July 2008 proposal to stop DDG-1000 procurement and restart DDG-51 procurement.

On April 8, 2009, it was reported that the Navy had reached an agreement with HII/Ingalls and GD/BIW to shift the second DDG-1000 to GD/BIW, and to have GD/BIW build all three ships. HII/Iingalls will continue to make certain parts of the three ships, notably their composite deckhouses. The agreement to have all three DDG-1000s built at GD/BIW was a condition that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates set forth in an April 6, 2009, news conference on the FY2010 defense budget for his support for continuing with the construction of all three DDG-1000s (rather than proposing the cancellation of the second and third).

Navy plans for many years called for ending DDG-51 procurement in FY2005, to be followed by procurement of up to 32 DDG-1000s and some number of CG(X)s. In subsequent years, the planned total number of DDG-1000s was reduced to 16 to 24, then to 7, and finally to 3.

At the end of July 2008, in a major reversal of its destroyer procurement plans, the Navy announced that it wanted to end procurement of DDG-1000s and resume procurement of DDG-51s. In explaining this reversal, which came after two DDG-1000s had been procured, the Navy stated that it had reevaluated the future operating environment and determined that its destroyer procurement now needed to emphasize three missions: open-ocean antisubmarine warfare (ASW), countering anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), and countering ballistic missiles. Although the DDG-1000 could perform the first two of these missions and could be modified to perform the third, the Navy concluded that the DDG-51 design could perform these three missions adequately and would be less expensive to procure than the DDG-1000 design.

The Navy's proposal to stop procuring DDG-1000s and resume procuring DDG-51s was presented in the Navy's proposed FY2010 budget, which was submitted to Congress in 2009. Congress, in acting on the Navy's FY2010 budget, approved the idea of ending DDG-1000 procurement and restarting DDG-51 procurement, and procured a third DDG-1000 as the final ship in the class.

In retrospect, the Navy's 2008 reversal in its destroyer procurement plans can be viewed as an early indication of the ending of the post-Cold War era (during which the Navy focused its planning on operating in littoral waters against the land- and sea-based forces of countries such as Iran and North Korea) and the shift in the international security environment to a new situation featuring renewed great power competition (during which the Navy is now focusing its planning more on being able to operate in mid-ocean waters against capable naval forces from near-peer competitors such as China and Russia).

As shown in Table A-1 below, the estimated combined procurement cost for all three DDG-1000s, as reflected in the Navy's annual budget submission, has grown by $4,218.4 million, or 47.0%, since the FY2009 budget (i.e., the budget for the fiscal year in which the third DDG-1000 was procured).

Some of the cost growth in the earlier years in the table was caused by the truncation of the DDG-1000 program from seven ships to three, which caused some class-wide procurement-rated costs that had been allocated to the fourth through seventh ships in the program to be reallocated to the three remaining ships.

The Navy states that the cost growth shown through FY2015 in the table reflects, among other things, a series of incremental, year-by-year movements away from an earlier Navy cost estimate for the program, and toward a higher estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). As one consequence of a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach experienced by the DDG-1000 program in 2010 (see discussion bvelow), the Navy was directed to fund the DDG-1000 program to CAPE's higher cost estimate for the period FY2011-FY2015, and to the Navy's cost estimate for FY2016 and beyond. The Navy states that it implemented this directive in a year-by-year fashion with each budget submission from FY2010 through FY2015, moving incrementally closer each year through FY2015 to CAPE's higher estimate. The Navy stated in 2014 that even with the cost growth shown in the table, the DDG-1000 program as of the FY2015 budget submission was still about 3% below the program's rebaselined starting point for calculating any new Nunn-McCurdy cost breach on the program.

Section 123 of the FY2006 defense authorization act ( H.R. 1815 / P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006) limited the procurement cost of the fifth DDG-1000 to $2.3 billion, plus adjustments for inflation and other factors. Given the truncation of the DDG-1000 program to three ships, this unit procurement cost cap appears moot.

2010 Nunn-McCurdy Breach, Program Restructuring, and Milestone Recertification

On February 1, 2010, the Navy notified Congress that the DDG-1000 program had experienced a critical cost breach under the Nunn-McCurdy provision. The Nunn-McCurdy provision (10 U.S.C. 2433a) requires certain actions to be taken if a major defense acquisition program exceeds (i.e., breaches) certain cost-growth thresholds and is not terminated. Among other things, a program that experiences a cost breach large enough to qualify under the provision as a critical cost breach has its previous acquisition system milestone certification revoked. (In the case of the DDG-1000 program, this was Milestone B.) In addition, for the program to proceed rather than be terminated, DOD must certify certain things, including that the program is essential to national security and that there are no alternatives to the program that will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost.

The Navy stated in its February 1, 2010, notification letter that the DDG-1000 program's critical cost breach was a mathematical consequence of the program's truncation to three ships. Since the DDG-1000 program has roughly $9.3 billion in research and development costs, truncating the program to three ships increased to roughly $3.1 billion the average amount of research and development costs that are included in the average acquisition cost (i.e., average research and development cost plus procurement cost) of each DDG-1000. The resulting increase in program acquisition unit cost (PAUC)—one of two measures used under the Nunn-McCurdy provision for measuring cost growth —was enough to cause a Nunn-McCurdy critical cost breach.

In a June 1, 2010, letter (with attachment) to Congress, Ashton Carter, the DOD acquisition executive (i.e., the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), stated that he had restructured the DDG-1000 program and that he was issuing the certifications required under the Nunn-McCurdy provision for the restructured DDG-1000 program to proceed. The letter stated that the restructuring of the DDG-1000 program included the following:

A change to the DDG-1000's design affecting its primary radar. A change in the program's Initial Operational Capability (IOC) from FY2015 to FY2016. A revision to the program's testing and evaluation requirements.

Regarding the change to the ship's design affecting its primary radar, the DDG-1000 originally was to have been equipped with a dual-band radar (DBR) consisting of the Raytheon-built X-band SPY-3 multifunction radar (MFR) and the Lockheed-built S-band SPY-4 Volume Search Radar (VSR). (Raytheon is the prime contractor for the overall DBR.) Both parts of the DBR have been in development for the past several years. An attachment to the June 1, 2010, letter stated that, as a result of the program's restructuring, the ship is now to be equipped with "an upgraded multifunction radar [MFR] and no volume search radar [VSR]." The change eliminates the Lockheed-built S-band SPY-4 VSR from the ship's design. The ship might retain a space and weight reservation that would permit the VSR to be backfitted to the ship at a later point. The Navy states that

As part of the Nunn-McCurdy certification process, the Volume Search Radar (VSR) hardware was identified as an acceptable opportunity to reduce cost in the program and thus was removed from the current baseline design....

Modifications will be made to the SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) with the focus of meeting ship Key Performance Parameters. The MFR modifications will involve software changes to perform a volume search functionality. Shipboard operators will be able to optimize the SPY-3 MFR for either horizon search or volume search. While optimized for volume search, the horizon search capability is limited. Without the VSR, DDG 1000 is still expected to perform local area air defense....

The removal of the VSR will result in an estimated $300 million net total cost savings for the three-ship class. These savings will be used to offset the program cost increase as a result of the truncation of the program to three ships. The estimated cost of the MFR software modification to provide the volume search capability will be significantly less than the estimated procurement costs for the VSR.

Regarding the figure of $300 million net total cost savings in the above passage, the Navy during 2011 determined that eliminating the SPY-4 VSR from the DDG-1000 increased by $54 million the cost to integrate the dual-band radar into the Navy's new Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carriers. Subtracting this $54 million cost from the above $300 million savings figure would bring the net total cost savings to about $246 million on a Navy-wide basis.

A July 26, 2010, press report quotes Captain James Syring, the DDG-1000 program manager, as stating the following: "We don't need the S-band radar to meet our requirements [for the DDG-1000]," and "You can meet [the DDG-1000's operational] requirements with [the] X-band [radar] with software modifications."

An attachment to the June 1, 2010, letter stated that the PAUC for the DDG-1000 program had increased 86%, triggering the Nunn-McCurdy critical cost breach, and that the truncation of the program to three ships was responsible for 79 of the 86 percentage points of increase. (The attachment stated that the other seven percentage points of increase are from increases in development costs that are primarily due to increased research and development work content for the program.)

Carter also stated in his June 1, 2010, letter that he had directed that the DDG-1000 program be funded, for the period FY2011-FY2015, to the cost estimate for the program provided by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office (which is a part of the Office of the Secretary of Defense [OSD]), and, for FY2016 and beyond, to the Navy's cost estimate for the program. The program was previously funded to the Navy's cost estimate for all years. Since CAPE's cost estimate for the program is higher than the Navy's cost estimate, funding the program to the CAPE estimate for the period FY2011-FY2015 will increase the cost of the program as it appears in the budget for those years. The letter states that DOD "intends to address the [resulting] FY2011 [funding] shortfall [for the DDG-1000 program] through reprogramming actions."

An attachment to the letter stated that the CAPE in May 2010 estimated the PAUC of the DDG-1000 program (i.e., the sum of the program's research and development costs and procurement costs, divided by the three ships in the program) as $7.4 billion per ship in then-year dollars ($22.1 billion in then-year dollars for all three ships), and the program's average procurement unit cost (APUC), which is the program's total procurement cost divided by the three ships in the program, as $4.3 billion per ship in then-year dollars ($12.8 billion in then-year dollars for all three ships). The attachment stated that these estimates are at a confidence level of about 50%, meaning that the CAPE believes there is a roughly 50% chance that the program can be completed at or under these cost estimates, and a roughly 50% chance that the program will exceed these cost estimates.

An attachment to the letter directed the Navy to "return for a Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) review in the fall 2010 timeframe when the program is ready to seek approval of the new Milestone B and authorization for production of the DDG-1002 [i.e., the third ship in the program]."

On October 8, 2010, DOD reinstated the DDG-1000 program's Milestone B certification and authorized the Navy to continue production of the first and second DDG-1000s and commence production of the third DDG-1000.

Technical Risk and Test and Evaluation Issues

A May 2019 GAO report assessing selected major DOD weapon acquisition programs stated the following of the DDG-1000 program:

Technology Maturity and Design Stability

The DDG 1000 program has fully matured most, but not all, of its nine current critical technologies and reports a stable design. According to the Navy, the fire suppression system, hull form, deckhouse, power system, and undersea warfare suite technologies are all mature. At the same time, the vertical launch system, infrared signature, multi-function radar, and total ship computing environment technologies each continue to approach maturity. The Navy expects to fully mature these systems as it completes ship construction, certification, and testing over the next 2 years.

The program originally had 12 critical technologies, but in the last several years, the Navy removed three, including two technologies associated with the advanced gun system—the projectile and the gun—because of the projectile's high cost per round. The Navy planned to rely on these munitions for precision fires and offensive operations. Following an evaluation of five other munition options, the Navy determined that no viable replacement, guided or unguided, was feasible. As a result, the guns will remain inoperable on the ships for the foreseeable future. Lastly, the Navy will use a modified multi-function radar in place of a volume search radar, which the Navy removed from the class.

As we have previously reported, the Navy and its shipbuilders had not stabilized DDG 1000's design by lead ship fabrication start in 2009—an approach inconsistent with best practices. This approach contributed to numerous design changes after the fabrication start and significant cost increases and schedule delays. Nearly 10 years later, development and shipboard testing of technologies continues, each of which could lead to discovery that could disrupt the design stability the Navy currently claims.

The Navy plans to complete software development for the class in September 2020—a delay of 24 months since our 2018 assessment. As a result, the Navy has had to delay some testing. Also that month, the program plans to complete its cyber security vulnerability evaluation along with the remainder of a 2-year regimen of certifications and several different tests. The Navy expects this regimen to demonstrate the full functionality of the ship's systems.

The DDG 1000 shipbuilder is approaching completion of the hull, mechanical, and electrical (HM&E) systems for all three ships of the class. Shipbuilder delivery of the lead ship's HM&E occurred 18 months behind schedule, in part because of problems completing electrical work associated with the ship's power system. The shipbuilder also experienced problems completing the power system for DDG 1001, the second ship in the class. Following sea trials, the Navy inspected one of the ship's main turbine generators and found that the generator was damaged by a woodscrew. The damage was extensive enough that the Navy chose to replace the engine and send it for repair. Officials report that the shipbuilder delivered the ship in April 2018 and the Navy replaced the engine in September 2018 at its expense.

The Navy has scheduled DDG 1000's final delivery, including HM&E and combat systems, for May 2019. The Navy has scheduled DDG 1001's final delivery to follow in September 2020. However, the Navy is still working to correct serious deficiencies that its Board of Inspection and Survey has identified on both ships. Specifically, the board found over 320 serious deficiencies when the shipbuilder delivered DDG 1000's HM&E in May 2016, and 246 serious deficiences after the Navy conducted acceptance trials for DDG 1001 in January and February 2018. This increases the likelihood that the ship will not be fully capable and sustainable when provided to the fleet.

To limit further delays to DDG 1000 and DDG 1001 construction, the Navy has authorized its shipbuilder to take parts from DDG 1002—the third and final ship of the class, which is under construction. The Navy does not yet know the full extent to which these actions will delay DDG 1002's construction schedule, but stated that these parts typically can be borrowed and replaced without causing a delay. The Navy has scheduled the ship's HM&E delivery in March 2020 followed by final delivery in September 2022.

In a January 2018 decision memorandum, the Navy changed DDG 1000's primary mission from land attack to offensive surface strike. Navy officials are in the process of determining the operational concept for the ship within its new mission. The Navy has yet to establish testing plans to evaluate these future mission sets. According to Navy officials, the Navy's planned modifications to support the new mission will cost about $1 billion, from non-acquisition accounts.

We provided a draft of this assessment to the program office for review and comment. The program office provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. The program office also stated that it is making good progress delivering the Zumwalt class. The Navy said that, since our assessment, DDG 1000 completed combat systems availability, combat tests are underway, and final delivery is now planned for September 2019. The program office also said that DDG 1001 started combat systems availability in April 2019, and DDG 1002 is 84 percent constructed. The program office further noted that future addition of new systems onto Zumwalt-class ships will provide offensive fire capabilities.


Overview of FY2019 Appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS)

Summary: This report describes actions taken by the Trump Administration and Congress to provide FY2019 funding for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) accounts. It also provides an overview of enacted FY2018 funding for agencies and bureaus funded as part of annual CJS appropriations acts.

Summary: The Administration requested $66.555 billion for CJS for FY2019. The request included $9.797 billion for the Department of Commerce, $28.835 billion for the Department of Justice (DOJ), $27.372 billion for the science agencies, and $551 million for the related agencies. The Administration's budget proposed eliminating funding for several CJS agencies and accounts. The Administration proposed moving funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program from the Office of National Drug Control Policy to the Drug Enforcement Administration, closing the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office and moving its responsibilities to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and a new account structure for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Summary: The bill reported by the House Committee on Appropriations (H.R. 5952) would have provided a total of $73.923 billion for CJS for FY2019. The bill would have provided $12.106 billion for the Department of Commerce, $31.113 billion for DOJ, $29.728 billion for the science agencies, and $976 million for the related agencies. The committee largely declined to adopt many of the Administration's proposals to eliminate funding for several CJS agencies and accounts, though the committee-reported bill would have moved funding for the COPS program to OJP and it included the Administration's proposed account structure for NASA.

Summary: The bill reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S. 3072) would have provided a total of $72.648 billion for CJS for FY2019. The bill would have provided $11.572 billion for the Department of Commerce, $30.699 billion for DOJ, $29.400 billion for the science agencies, and $977 million for the related agencies. The Senate Committee on Appropriations largely declined to adopt many of the proposals put forth by the Administration in its FY2019 budget. Unlike the Administration's request and the House committee-reported bill, S. 3072 would have funded the COPS program through its own account and the committee did not include the Administration's new account structure for NASA.

Summary: FY2019 enacted funding for CJS is $72.908 billion. This amount includes $11.414 billion for the Department of Commerce, $30.934 billion for DOJ, $29.583 billion for the science agencies, and $977 million for the related agencies. In general, FY2019 funding for CJS is in-line with FY2018 enacted funding, with a few notable exceptions. These include increased funding for the Census Bureau to help ramp up operations for the 2020 decennial census, increased funding for DOJ's law enforcement agencies and the federal prisons system, and increased funding for several NASA accounts.

Summary: For FY2018, Congress and the President provided a total of $72.119 billion in funding for CJS. This included $70.921 billion in regular funding provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141) and $1.198 billion in emergency-designated funding provided in the Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-123).

T his report describes actions taken by the Administration and Congress to provide FY2019 appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) accounts. It also provides an overview of enacted FY2018 appropriations for agencies and bureaus funded as part of annual CJS appropriations. The second part of this report provides an overview of historical funding trends for CJS.

The dollar amounts in this report reflect only new funding made available at the start of the fiscal year. Therefore, the amounts do not include any rescissions of unobligated or deobligated balances that may be counted as offsets to newly enacted appropriations, nor do they include any scorekeeping adjustments (e.g., the budgetary effects of provisions limiting the availability of the balance in the Crime Victims Fund). In the text of the report, appropriations are rounded to the nearest million. However, percentage changes are calculated using whole, not rounded, numbers, meaning that in some instances there may be small differences between the actual percentage change and the percentage change that would be calculated by using the rounded amounts presented in the report.

The annual CJS appropriations act provides funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, select science agencies, and several related agencies. Appropriations for the Department of Commerce include funding for agencies such as the Census Bureau; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide funding for agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Prisons; the U.S. Marshals Service; the Drug Enforcement Administration; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, along with funding for a variety of grant programs for state, local, and tribal governments. The vast majority of funding for the science agencies goes to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. The annual appropriation for the related agencies includes funding for agencies such as the Legal Services Corporation and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The mission of the Department of Commerce is to "create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity." The department promotes "job creation and economic growth by ensuring fair and reciprocal trade, providing the data necessary to support commerce and constitutional democracy, and fostering innovation by setting standards and conducting foundational research and development." It has wide-ranging responsibilities including, among others, trade, economic development, technology, entrepreneurship and business development, monitoring the environment, forecasting weather, managing marine resources, and statistical research and analysis. The department pursues and implements policies that affect trade and economic development by working to open new markets for U.S. goods and services and promoting pro-growth business policies. It also invests in research and development to foster innovation.

The agencies within the Department of Commerce, and their major responsibilities, include the following:

International Trade Administration (ITA) seeks to strengthen the international competitiveness of U.S. industry, promote trade and investment, and ensure fair trade and compliance with trade laws and agreements; Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) works to ensure an effective export control and treaty compliance system and promote continued U.S. leadership in strategic technologies by maintaining and strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export controls and treaty compliance systems, along with active leadership and involvement in international export control regimes; Economic Development Administration (EDA) promotes innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy; Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) promotes the growth of minority owned businesses through the mobilization and advancement of public and private sector programs, policy, and research; Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) is a federal statistical agency that promotes a better understanding of the U.S. economy by providing timely, relevant, and accurate economic accounts data in an objective and cost-effective manner; Census Bureau , a component of ESA, measures and disseminates information about the U.S. economy, society, and institutions, which fosters economic growth, advances scientific understanding, and facilitates informed decisions; National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) advises the President on communications and information policy; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fosters innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth domestically and abroad by providing high-quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property (IP) policy, and delivering IP information and education worldwide; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology enhancing economic security; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides weather forecasts and research, oceanic and atmospheric monitoring, fisheries management and research, ocean exploration, and support of marine commerce.

DOJ's mission is to "enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans." DOJ also provides legal advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and executive branch department heads.

The major functions of DOJ offices and agencies are described below:

Office of the United States Attorneys prosecutes violations of federal criminal laws, represents the federal government in civil actions, and initiates proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures owed to the United States; United States Marshals Service (USMS) provides security for the federal judiciary, protects witnesses, executes warrants and court orders, manages seized assets, detains and transports offenders who have not been sentenced, and apprehends fugitives; Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of federal criminal law; helps protect the United States against terrorism and hostile intelligence efforts; provides assistance to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; and shares jurisdiction with the Drug Enforcement Administration for the investigation of federal drug violations; Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigates federal drug law violations; develops and maintains drug intelligence systems; regulates the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of legitimate controlled substances; and conducts joint intelligence-gathering activities with foreign governments; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) enforces federal law related to the manufacture, importation, and distribution of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives; Federal Prison System ( Bureau of Prisons; BOP ) houses offenders sentenced to a term of incarceration for a federal crime and provides for the operation and maintenance of the federal prison system; Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women and administer justice for and strengthen services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; Office of Justice Programs (OJP) manages and coordinates the activities of the Bureau of Justice Assistance; Bureau of Justice Statistics; National Institute of Justice; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking; and Office of Victims of Crime; and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) advances the practice of community policing by the nation's state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources.

The science offices and agencies support research and development and related activities across a wide variety of federal missions, including national competitiveness, space exploration, and fundamental discovery.

The primary function of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is to provide the President and others within the Executive Office of the President with advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require the attention of the federal government. The OSTP director also manages the National Science and Technology Council, which coordinates science and technology policy across the executive branch of the federal government, and cochairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a council of external advisors that provides advice to the President on matters related to science and technology policy.

The National Space Council, in the Executive Office of the President, is a coordinating body for U.S. space policy. Chaired by the Vice President, it consists of the Secretaries of State, Defense, Commerce, Transportation, and Homeland Security; the Administrator of NASA; and other senior officials. The council previously existed from 1988 to 1993 and was reestablished by the Trump Administration in June 2017.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created to conduct civilian space and aeronautics activities. It has four mission directorates. The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate is responsible for human spaceflight activities, including the International Space Station and development efforts for future crewed spacecraft. The Science Mission Directorate manages robotic science missions, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Mars rover Curiosity, and satellites for Earth science research. The Space Technology Mission Directorate develops new technologies for use in future space missions, such as advanced propulsion and laser communications. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate conducts research and development on aircraft and aviation systems. In addition, NASA's Office of STEM Engagement (formerly the Office of Education) manages education programs for schoolchildren, college and university students, and the general public.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the nonmedical sciences and engineering. The foundation was established as an independent federal agency "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." The NSF is a primary source of federal support for U.S. university research. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and federal STEM student aid and support.

The annual CJS appropriations act includes funding for several related agencies:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights informs the development of national civil rights policy and enhances enforcement of federal civil rights laws; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information; International Trade Commission investigates the effects of dumped and subsidized imports on domestic industries and conducts global safeguard investigations, adjudicates cases involving imports that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights, and serves as a resource for trade data and other trade policy-related information; Legal Services Corporation is a federally funded nonprofit corporation that provides financial support for civil legal aid to low-income Americans; Marine Mammal Commission works for the conservation of marine mammals by providing science-based oversight of domestic and international policies and actions of federal agencies with a mandate to address human effects on marine mammals and their ecosystems; Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is responsible for developing and coordinating U.S. international trade, commodity, and direct investment policy, and overseeing negotiations with other countries; and State Justice Institute is a federally funded nonprofit corporation that awards grants to improve the quality of justice in state courts and foster innovative, efficient solutions to common issues faced by all courts.

For FY2018, Congress and the President provided a total of $72.119 billion for CJS. This included $70.921 billion in regular funding provided pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 , see Table 1 ) and $1.198 billion in emergency-designated funding provided pursuant to the Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 , see Table 2 ). For FY2018, the Department of Commerce received $12.137 billion ($11.137 billion in regular funding and $1.000 billion in supplemental funding), the Department of Justice received $30.384 billion ($30.299 billion in regular funding and $85 million in supplemental funding), the science agencies received $28.609 billion ($28.511 billion in regular funding and $98 million in supplemental funding), and the related agencies received $989 million ($974 million in regular funding and $15 million in supplemental funding).

Comparisons in this report between FY2018 enacted funding and the Administration's FY2019 request, the House and Senate committee-reported FY2019 amounts, and FY2019 enacted funding are based on FY2018 regular funding (i.e., FY2018 enacted funding excluding supplemental appropriations).

The Administration's FY2019 Budget Request

The Administration requested $66.555 billion for CJS for FY2019, which was 6.2% less than FY2018 regular funding. When comparing the Administration's FY2019 request to the FY2018 funding, it should be considered that the Administration formulated its FY2019 budget request before full-year appropriations for FY2018 were enacted. FY2018 funding levels, for the purposes of the Administration's request, were calculated based on FY2017 funding minus a reduction (0.6791%) as extended under a series of continuing resolutions.

The Administration requested the following:

$9.797 billion for the Department of Commerce, which was 12.0% less than FY2018 regular funding; $28.835 billion for the Department of Justice, which was 4.8% less than FY2018 regular funding; $27.372 billion for the science agencies, which was 4.0% less than FY2018 regular funding; and $551 million for the related agencies, which was 43.4% less than FY2018 regular funding.

The Administration's FY2019 budget for CJS proposed eliminating several agencies and programs:

EDA, NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Community Relations Service (its functions would have been moved to DOJ's Civil Rights Division), COPS Office (grants managed by the COPS Office would have been moved to OJP), NASA's Education program, and the Legal Services Corporation.

The Administration requested some funding for the EDA and Legal Services Corporation for what would have been an orderly closeout of these agencies had Congress adopted the Administration's proposal.

The Administration's budget also proposed to move funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program to the DEA. Currently, HIDTA funding is administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The Administration's requested funding for many CJS accounts was below FY2018 levels; however, there were a handful of exceptions:

the Census Bureau's Periodic Census and Programs account (+$1.007 billion, +39.6%), DOJ's Executive Office of Immigration Review (+$59 million, +11.8%), ATF (+$23 million, +1.8%), BIS (+$7 million, +6.3%), NSF's Agency Operations and Award Management account (+$5 million, +1.6%), ESA (+$2 million, +2.0%), and the State Justice Institute (+$2 million, +35.1%).

The Administration also proposed a new account structure for NASA, with three new accounts: Exploration Research and Technology, Deep Space Exploration Systems, and low Earth orbit (LEO) and Spaceflight Operations. The proposed Exploration Research and Technology account would have combined the Space Technology account with some elements of the Exploration account and the proposed Deep Space Exploration Systems account would have been the Exploration account minus the elements moved to the Exploration Research and Technology account. LEO and Spaceflight Operations would essentially have been a renaming of the Space Operations account.

The House Committee-Reported Bill (H.R. 5952)

The House committee-reported bill ( H.R. 5952 ) would have provided a total of $73.923 billion for CJS for FY2019, an amount that was 4.2% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 11.1% greater than the Administration's request. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended the following:

$12.106 billion for the Department of Commerce, which was 8.7% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 23.6% greater than the Administration's request; $31.113 billion for the Department of Justice, which was 2.7% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 7.9% greater than the Administration's request; $29.728 billion for the science agencies, which was 4.3% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 8.6% greater than the Administration's request; and $976 million for the related agencies, which was 0.2% greater than regular FY2018 funding and 77.1% greater than the Administration's request.

The committee-reported bill would have increased funding for most CJS accounts compared to regular FY2018 funding. Some of the exceptions included the following:

ITA (-$2 million, -0.4%); NIST's Scientific and Technical Research and Services account (-$5 million, -0.6%); NIST's Industrial Technology Services account (-$10 million, -6.5%); NIST's Construction of Research Facilities account (-$199 million, -62.4%); NOAA's Operations, Research, and Facilities account (-$63 million, -1.8%); NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (-$683 million, -29.8%); U.S. Marshals' Construction account (-$28 million, -53.2%); FBI's Construction account (-$305 million, -82.4%); BOP's Buildings and Facilities account (-$12 million, -7.2%); Juvenile Justice Programs (-$71 million, -25.0%); and NASA's Education account (-$10 million, -10.0%).

In general, the committee-reported bill would have funded CJS accounts at or above the Administration's request, but there were a few exceptions:

BIS (-$7 million, -5.9%); NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (-$15 million, -0.9%); DOJ's General Administration Salaries and Expenses (-$12 million, -10.3%); Juvenile Justice Programs (-$18 million, -7.6%); NASA's Operations Research and Technology account (-$103 million, -10.2%); and the State Justice Institute (-$1 million, -15.9%).

The House Committee on Appropriations did not adopt most of the Administration's proposals. The committee did not eliminate funding for EDA, NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Community Relations Service, NASA's Education program, and the Legal Services Corporation. With the exception of NASA's Education program, the committee-reported bill would have funded these agencies and programs at a level equal to FY2018 regular funding. Additionally, the committee-reported bill did not provide funding for the HIDTA program under the DEA. However, the committee adopted two of the Administration's proposals. Funding for the COPS program would have been moved to OJP under H.R. 5952 . Also, the committee-reported bill included the Administration's proposed account structure for NASA.

The Senate Committee-Reported Bill (S. 3072)

The Senate committee-reported bill ( S. 3072 ) would have provided a total of $72.648 billion for CJS for FY2019, an amount that was 2.4% more than regular FY2018 funding and 9.2% more than the Administration's request. The Senate committee-reported bill would have provided the following:

$11.572 billion for the Department of Commerce, which was 3.9% more than regular FY2018 funding and 18.1% more than the Administration's request; $30.699 billion for the Department of Justice, which was 1.3% more than regular FY2018 funding and 6.5% more than the Administration's request; $29.400 billion for the science agencies, which was 3.1% more than regular FY2018 funding and 7.4% more than the Administration's request; and $977 million for the related agencies, which was 0.4% more than regular FY2018 funding and 77.3% more than the Administration's request.

In general, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended funding many CJS accounts at or above the regular FY2018 funding amount. A few notable exceptions included the following:

NIST's Construction of Research Facilities account (-$161 million, -50.5%); NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (-$484 million, -21.1%); U.S. Marshals' Construction account (-$18 million, -34.5%); DOJ's Interagency Law Enforcement account (-$21 million, -3.9%); NASA's Space Operations account (-$112 million, -2.4%); NASA's Safety, Security, and Mission Services account (-$77 million, -2.7%); and NASA's Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration account (-$174 million, -31.0%).

The Senate committee-reported bill would have funded nearly every CJS account at or above the level requested by the Administration. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also declined to adopt many of the proposals the Administration put forth in its FY2019 budget. Unlike the House committee-reported bill, S. 3072 would have funded the COPS program through its own account and the committee did not include the Administration's new account structure for NASA. The committee did propose changing the name of NASA's Education account to "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Opportunities." The Senate bill would have also funded the Office on Violence Against Women via a transfer from the Crime Victims Fund.

On February 15, 2019, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ), which includes $72.908 billion for CJS. The FY2019 enacted amount is 2.8% more than regular FY2018 funding and 9.5% more than the Administration's request. The act includes the following:

$11.414 billion for the Department of Commerce, which is 2.5% more than regular FY2018 funding and 16.5% more than the Administration's request; $30.934 billion for the Department of Justice, which is 2.1% more than regular FY2018 funding and 7.3% more than the Administration's request; $29.583 billion for the science agencies, which is 3.8% more than regular FY2018 funding and 8.1% more than the Administration's request; and $977 million for the related agencies, which is 0.3% more than regular FY2018 funding and 77.3% more than the Administration's request.

FY2019 enacted funding is generally in-line with regular FY2018 funding and higher than the Administration's request. Some notable increases in FY2019 enacted funding compared to regular FY2018 funding include the following:

Census Bureau's Periodic Censuses and Programs account (+$1.007 billion, +39.6%), Executive Office of Immigration Review (+$59 million, +11.8%), U.S. Attorneys (+$75 million, +3.5%), U.S. Marshals' Salaries and Expenses account (+$47 million, +3.5%), FBI's Salaries and Expenses account (+$162 million, +1.8%), DEA's Salaries and Expenses account (+$77 million, +3.5%), BOP's Salaries and Expenses account (+$136 million, +1.9%), BOP's Buildings and Facilities account (+$102 million, 63.4%), NASA's Science account (+$684 million, +11.0%), NASA's Space Technology account (+$167 million, +22.0%), NASA's Exploration account (+$261 million, +5.4%), NSF's Research and Related Activities account (+$186 million, +2.9%), and NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account (+$113 million, +61.8%).

There were also a few notable decreases in FY2019 enacted funding compared to regular FY2018 funding:

NIST's Construction of Research Facilities account (-$213 million, -66.8%); NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (-$535 million, -23.4%); U.S. Marshals' Construction account (-$38 million, -71.9%); NASA's Space Operations account (-$112 million, -2.4%); and NASA's Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration account (-$214 million, -38.1%).

Congress largely declined to adopt the Administration's proposals for CJS. Congress did not adopt the Administration's proposed account structure for NASA (though Congress changed the name of NASA's Education account to the "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Engagement" account), it did not move funding for the HIDTA program to the DEA, and it did not move COPS funding to OJP. Congress also provided funding for the EDA, NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, DOJ's Community Relations Service, and the Legal Services Corporation, all of which the Administration proposed eliminating.

Table 1 outlines the FY2018 funding, the Administration's FY2019 request, the House and the Senate committee-reported amounts, and FY2019 funding for the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the science agencies, and the related agencies. Table 2 provides information on FY2018 supplemental funding for CJS.

Figure 1 shows the total CJS funding for FY2009-FY2018, in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars (more-detailed historical appropriations data can be found in Table 3 ). The data show that nominal funding for CJS reached a new 10-year high in FY2018, if emergency supplemental funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ) is not counted. Otherwise, peak funding for CJS over the past 10 fiscal years was in FY2009 when ARRA provided a substantial increase in funding. The $15.992 billion in funding for CJS under ARRA added approximately 25% to the amount Congress and the President provided for CJS through the regular appropriation process that year. While regular nominal funding over the past 10 fiscal years was at its highest in FY2018, in inflation-adjusted terms, funding for FY2018 was lower than it was in FY2010.

Increased funding for CJS coincides with the increase to the discretionary budget caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25 ). The BCA put into effect statutory limits on discretionary spending for FY2012-FY2021. Under the act, discretionary spending limits were scheduled to be adjusted downward each fiscal year until FY2021. However, legislation was enacted that increased discretionary spending caps for FY2014 to FY2018. A sequestration of discretionary funding, ordered pursuant to the BCA, cut nearly $4 billion out of the total amount Congress and the President provided for CJS for FY2013. Since then, funding for CJS has increased as more discretionary funding has been allowed under the BCA.

Figure 2 shows total CJS funding for FY2009-FY2018 by major component (i.e., the Departments of Commerce and Justice, NASA, and the NSF). Increases in CJS funding in FY2009 (not including ARRA funding) and FY2010 largely resulted from more funding for the Department of Commerce in support of the 2010 decennial census, though there were small increases during that same time in funding for DOJ, NASA, and NSF.

Although decreased appropriations for the Department of Commerce mostly explain the overall decrease in CJS appropriations from FY2010 to FY2013 (a 47.4% reduction), cuts in funding for DOJ (-8.7%) and NASA (-9.8%) also contributed. Funding for NSF held relatively steady from FY2010 to FY2013.

Overall CJS funding has increased since FY2014, and this is partially explained by more funding for the Department of Commerce to help the Census Bureau prepare for the 2020 decennial census. However, over this time period there have also been steady increases in funding for DOJ (+9.5%), NASA (+18.0%), and NSF (+8.5%), as higher discretionary spending caps have been used to provide additional funding to these agencies. Also, the increase in funding for the Department of Commerce is not solely due to more funding for the Census Bureau. Funding has increased for other agencies within the department, such as NOAA (+18.7%) and NIST (+$41.0%).