Home
Solutions
Products
Pricing
Resources
Request Demo
Start Free
Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo
StateStorm

Weekly Updates

LegiStorm is constantly adding new information on the people, places and reports in our database. In the past week, LegiStorm added:

  • 1456 new people
  • 33 new organizations
  • 1374 new photos
  • 1836 job history records for people in our database
  • 632 education records for people in our database
  • 2621 contact addresses, emails and URLs (LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.)
  • 2 new people through the revolving door
  • 260 new policy reports
  • 19 new trips to our privately funded travel database
  • 11265 new press releases
  • 19 new town halls

Caught Our Eye Rss

» More from Caught Our Eye
» More from our DevBlog

Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches - Background and Options for Congress (CRS Report for Congress)

Premium   Purchase PDF for $24.95 (38 pages)
add to cart or subscribe for unlimited access
Release Date Revised June 15, 2007
Report Number RL32776
Report Type Report
Authors Ronald O'Rourke, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Source Agency Congressional Research Service
Older Revisions
  • Premium   Revised Oct. 20, 2006 (39 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised July 26, 2006 (38 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised June 20, 2006 (38 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Feb. 21, 2006 (36 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised Jan. 4, 2006 (37 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised June 28, 2005 (33 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised May 25, 2005 (33 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   Revised May 11, 2005 (30 pages, $24.95) add
  • Premium   March 25, 2005 (30 pages, $24.95) add
Summary:

Some observers have proposed procuring Navy ships using incremental funding or advance appropriations rather than the traditional full funding approach that has been used to procure most Navy ships. Supporters believe these alternative funding approaches could increase stability in Navy shipbuilding plans and perhaps increase the number of Navy ships that could be built for a given total amount of ship-procurement funding. The issue for Congress is whether to maintain or change current practices for funding Navy ship procurement. Congress's decision could be significant because the full funding policy relates to Congress's power of the purse and its responsibility for conducting oversight of defense programs. For Department of Defense (DOD) procurement programs, the full funding policy requires the entire procurement cost of a usable end item (such as a Navy ship) to be funded in the year in which the item is procured. Congress imposed the full funding policy on DOD in the 1950s to strengthen discipline in DOD budgeting and improve Congress's ability to control DOD spending and carry out its oversight of DOD activities. Under incremental funding, a weapon's cost is divided into two or more annual increments that Congress approves separately each year. Supporters could argue that using it could avoid or mitigate budget spikes associated with procuring very expensive ships such as aircraft carriers or "large-deck" amphibious assault ships. Opponents could argue that using it could make total ship procurement costs less visible and permit one Congress to budgetarily "tie the hands" of future Congresses. Under advance appropriations, Congress makes a one-time decision to fund the entire procurement cost of an end item. That cost can then be divided into two or more annual increments that are assigned to (in budget terminology, "scored in") two or more fiscal years. Supporters could argue that using advance appropriations could avoid or mitigate budget spikes without some of the potential disadvantages of incremental funding. Opponents could argue that advance appropriations retains (or even expands) a key potential disadvantage of incremental finding—that of tying the hands of future Congresses. Using incremental funding or advance appropriations could, under certain circumstances, marginally reduce the cost of Navy ships. Under certain other circumstances, however, it could increase costs. Options for Congress include maintaining current ship-procurement funding practices; strengthening adherence to the full funding policy; increasing the use of incremental funding; beginning to use advance appropriations; and transferring lead-ship detailed design and nonrecurring engineering costs to the research and development account. Arguments could be made in support of or against each of these options. This report will be updated as events warrant.
HomeAbout Us Contact UsPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseJoin Us
© LegiStorm
LegiStorm
2101 L St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 360-4172 / congress@legistorm.com