As part of its proposed FY2010 defense budget, the Administration proposed deferring the start of a program to develop a next-generation bomber (NGB) for the Air Force, pending the completion of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and associated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and in light of strategic arms control negotiations with Russia. The Administration's proposed FY2010 budget requested no funding specifically identified in public budget documents as being for an NGB program. Prior to the submission of the FY2010 budget, the Air Force was conducting research and development work aimed at fielding a next-generation bomber by 2018. Although the proposed FY2010 defense budget proposes to defer the start of an NGB program, the Secretary of Defense and Air Force officials in 2009 have expressed support for the need to eventually start such a program. The Air Force's FY2010 unfunded requirements list (URL)—a list of programs desired by the Air Force but not funded in the Air Force's proposed FY2010 budget—includes a classified $140-million item that some press accounts have identified as being for continued work on a next-generation bomber. A key issue for Congress in FY2010 is whether to provide funding in FY2010 for an NGB program. A second issue is whether to enact legislation that would amend or add to prior-year legislation on bomber force structure. Congress's decisions on these issues could affect Air Force capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S. aircraft manufacturing industrial base. At an April 6, 2009, news conference on recommendations he was making for the proposed FY2010 defense budget, Secretary of Defense Report Gates announced, among other things, that he would recommend deferring the start of a NGB program. Gates stated: Last year's National Defense Strategy concluded that although U.S. predominance in conventional warfare is not unchallenged, it is sustainable for the medium term given current trends. This year's budget deliberations focused on what programs are necessary to deter aggression, project power when necessary, and protect our interests and allies around the globe. To this end, I will recommend new or additional investments and shifts in several key areas:... 8. With regard to our nuclear and strategic forces:... • We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology. • We will examine all of our strategic requirements during the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, and in light of Post-START arms control negotiations. An Office of Management and Budget (OMB) document on terminations, reductions, and savings in the proposed FY2010 budget describes the proposal for the NGB program more as a termination than a deferral. The document states: The Administration has decided not to pursue development of a new long-range bomber, which the Department of Defense (DOD) had planned to begin fielding in 2018 as a means of augmenting the existing bomber fleet. The existing fleet of 173 bombers will be able to meet expected threats.... The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review proposed that DOD develop a new long-range heavy bomber by 2018 to augment the current bomber fleet of B-52s, B-2s and B-1Bs. The Administration has decided not to pursue technology efforts aimed at developing a new bomber because the current fleet is performing well. Further, as a result of ongoing efforts to upgrade the existing bomber fleet with new electronic and weapons systems, current aircraft will be able to meet the threats expected in the foreseeable future. Since there is no urgent need to begin an expensive development program for a new bomber, the Department will utilize the additional time to develop a better understanding of the requirement and to develop the technologies most suitable for a long-range bomber. Also, the Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the long-term implications of the defense program, concluded that DOD's weapons acquisition program, including the future bomber fleet, may not be affordable over the next six years. Not pursuing this program will result in savings of several hundred million dollars through 2013. The Air Force's research and development account includes a line item—Program Element (PE) 0604015F, Next Generation Long Range Strike (NGLRS)—that since the FY2005 budget submission has included funding explicitly identified in public budget documents as being for development of a next-generation bomber. The Administration's proposed FY2010 defense budget requested no funding for this line item for FY2010-FY2015. The description of PE0604015F in the FY2010 budget submission notes a request for $43.9 million (and projected requests of $47.5 million in FY2011 and $14.5 million in FY2012) for another Air Force research and development line item—PE0604830F, Automated Air-to-Air Refueling—that "develops, demonstrates and validates the ability of air refuel an aircraft without pilot intervention, in support of Next Generation Long Range Strike development strategies." The FY2010 budget submission shows concept refinement on a next-generation long-range strike capability extending through the third quarter of FY2011, and the Automated Aerial Refueling phase two demonstration extending through the fourth quarter of FY2012. The Air Force's FY2010 unfunded requirements list (URL)—a list of programs desired by the Air Force but not funded in the Air Force's proposed FY2010 budget—includes a classified $140-million item that some press reports have identified as being for continued work on a next-generation bomber. The $140 million item is the ninth of the 20 items on the URL. A June 2009 press report stated: The Pentagon told two groups that have been researching the U.S. Air Force's long-range bomber to quietly close up shop while the service's leaders stumped on the Hill for a long-range strike capa­bility, according to analysts and defense industry sources. U.S. Defense Department offi­cials gave the order in the first week of June to the research teams, one from Northrop Grum­man and a combined Boeing­Lockheed Martin shop, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute, a think tank. "For now, there is no program because the contractors are being told to wrap it up," Thompson said. Prior to the submission of the FY2010 budget, the Air Force was conducting research and development work aimed at fielding a next-generation bomber by 2018. This section presents information on that program. The 2006 QDR called for the development of a next-generation bomber that would enter service by 2018. The final report on the 2006 QDR, released in February 2006 in conjunction with the proposed FY2007 defense budget, stated: The Air Force has set a goal of increasing its long-range strike capabilities by 50% and the penetrating component of long-range strike by a factor of five by 2025. Approximately 45% of the future long-range strike force will be unmanned. The capacity for joint air forces to conduct global conventional strikes against time-sensitive targets will also be increased. QDR Decisions. To achieve the future joint force characteristics and build on progress to date, the Department plans to: Develop a new land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability to be fielded by 2018 while modernizing the current bomber force. Reduce the B-52 force to 56 aircraft and use savings to fully modernize B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s to support global strike operations. Following the release of the final report on the 2006 QDR, the Air Force announced a three-phase study on implementing the decision on bombers. The Air Force testified in March 2006 that phase one would examine continued modifications and enhancements to the current bomber fleet, phase two would add $1.6 billion to aid in development of the 2018 bomber, and about $275 million would be set aside for phrase three, which would examine bomber need "out beyond 2025 and 2030." Prior to the 2006 QDR, the Air Force had indicated that its current bomber fleet would suffice until 2037, when advanced technologies, such as hypersonic cruise vehicles, would potentially reach maturity and be incorporated into a follow-on bomber aircraft. The 2006 QDR's call for a new bomber that would enter service in 2018 thus accelerated Air Force plans for fielding a new bomber by almost 20 years. The commander of U.S. Strategic Command in early 2008 discussed a need for at least 96 next-generation bombers, so as to replace the 76 B-52Hs and 20 B-2s that are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Other press reports stated that the Air Force envisaged procuring about 100 new bombers. Testimony and press reports suggest that Air Force officials prior to the FY2010 budget submission envisaged the next-generation bomber as a new-design aircraft that uses existing aircraft technologies, because the 2018 target in-service date would not allow enough time to develop new technologies. The aircraft would likely be subsonic and stealthy; it might have an unrefueled range of 2,000 to 3,000 miles; and it might carry 28,000 to 40,000 pounds of armaments. Whether the aircraft would be manned or unmanned was not determined, but Air Force officials suggested that, in light of the 2018 target in-service date, the initial version of the aircraft, at least, would likely need to be manned. It was also stated that the aircraft's basic design might also serve as the basis of the design for a new Air Force long-range reconnaissance aircraft. The two expected competitors for the NGB program were Northrop and a team composed of Boeing and Lockheed. Northrop was the prime contractor for the B-2, although Boeing was a major subcontractor. Rockwell International (now part of Boeing), was the prime contractor for the B-1.