Appropriations for FY1998: Defense

Appropriations for FY1998: Defense
Updated November 26, 1997
Stephen Daggett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations. In addition, the line item veto takes effect for the first time in 1997.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate Defense
Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its
scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists the key
CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
Since this report was last updated, data related to the FY1998 appropriations may have
changed through supplemental appropriations or rescissions, entitlement revisions, or
scorekeeping adjustments. These changes will be reflected in a subsequent report.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html

Appropriations for FY1998: Defense
Summary
On October 23, House and Senate conferees announced agreement on a
compromise version of the FY1998 defense authorization bill, H.R. 1119. The House
approved the conference report on October 28 by a vote of 268-123, and the Senate
approved the agreement on November 6 by a vote of 90-10. The President signed the
bill into law (P.L. 105-85) on November 18. The issue that had held up agreement
in the conference for several weeks was how to allocate work between public Air
Force depots in Utah, Oklahoma, and Georgia and two recently privatized facilities
in California and Texas. The conference agreement included compromise language
that allows competition between the public and private facilities, as the Administration
insisted, but with conditions, including a requirement that "core" work essential to
major missions be reserved for the public depots. Senators from Texas and California
opposed the compromise, however, and Office of Management and Budget Director,
Franklyn Raines, threatened a veto of the bill without changes in the compromise
language. No changes were made, however, and the President ultimately decided to
sign the bill.
Earlier, on September 25, the House and the Senate approved a conference
agreement on the FY 1998 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2266, and the President
signed the bill into law (P.L. 105-56) on October 8. The agreement resolved
differences between the two houses on a number of contentious issues, including B-2
bomber funding, withdrawal of troops from Bosnia, contractor teaming to produce
the New Attack Submarine, some other shipbuilding programs, and funding for
tactical aircraft programs. The B-2 and Bosnia compromises avoided a threatened
veto by the White House. The authorization conference follows the appropriations
on all of these issues. On October 14, the White House announced that the President
had exercised his line-item veto authority to delete funding for 13 projects in the
appropriations bill totaling $144 million.
The final version of the defense appropriations bill provides $247.7 billion in new
budget authority for defense programs, a compromise between the House-passed level
of $248.3 billion and the Senate level of $247.1 billion. The total is $3.8 billion above
the Administration request. The final military construction appropriations bill,
H.R. 2016, which was approved in the House on September 16 and in the Senate on
September 17, provides an additional $9.2 billion for the Department of Defense.
Several other appropriations bills also provide funds for defense-related activities of
other agencies. With action on all of the bills completed, total funding for national
defense is close to the level of $268.2 billion recommended by the FY1998
congressional budget resolution, which is $2.6 billion above the Administration
request. The authorization conference agreement also provides $268.2 billion.

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise Name CRS DivisionTelephone
Acquisition; IndustryValerie GrassoFAND7-7617
Arms SalesRichard GrimmettFAND7-7675
Base Closure; AcquisitionDavid LockwoodFAND7-7621
BombersDagnija Sterste-PerkinsFAND7-7631
Defense R&DRichard NunnoSTM7-7037
Defense R&DJohn MoteffSTM7-1435
Defense BudgetMary TyszkiewiczFAND7-3144
Defense R&DMichael DaveySTM7-7074
Defense BudgetStephen DaggettFAND7-7642
Ground ForcesEdward BrunerFAND7-2775
Ground ForcesSteven BowmanFAND7-7613
IntelligenceRichard BestFAND7-7607
Military ConstructionMary TyszkiewiczFAND7-3144
Military PersonnelDavid BurrelliFAND7-8033
Missile DefenseSteven HildrethFAND7-7635
Naval ForcesRonald O’RourkeFAND7-7610
Nuclear WeaponsJonathan MedaliaFAND7-7632
Peace OperationsNina SerafinoFAND7-7667
Personnel; ReservesRobert GoldichFAND7-7633
Strategic ForcesAmy WoolfFAND7-2379
Theater AircraftBert CooperFAND7-7604
War PowersLouis FisherGOV7-8676
War PowersRichard GrimmettFAND7-7675

Contents
Most Recent Developments....................................1
Background: Content of Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills.....1
Status ........................................................ 2
Defense Budget Trends...........................................4
Key Budget and Policy Issues......................................5
Budget Resolution Funding Levels for Defense.....................6
Priorities Within the Defense Budget.............................8
Implementing the Quadrennial Defense Review....................12
Other Issues...............................................14
The Line Item Veto and Defense...................................18
Legislation .................................................... 19
Summary Tables...............................................20
For Additional Reading..........................................27
CRS Issue Briefs...........................................27
CRS Reports..............................................27
Other Resources...........................................28
Selected World Wide Web Sites................................28
List of Tables
Table 1. National Defense Budget Projections Under the
White House-Congressional Budget Agreement.....................4
Table 2: Administration and Congressional
National Defense Budget Projections.............................7
Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998.................20
Table A2: Administration Defense Plan, February 1997.................20
Table A3: Congressional Action on
FY1998 Defense Authorization by Title..........................21
Table A4: Congressional Action on
FY1998 Defense Appropriations by Title.........................22
Table A5: Ballistic Missile Defense Funding, FY1998...................23
Table A6: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs: Authorization
........................................................ 24
Table A7: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs: Appropriations
........................................................ 25
Table A8: Line-Item Vetoes in the FY1998 Defense Appropriations Act.....26

Appropriations for FY1998: Defense
Most Recent Developments
On November 18, the President signed H.R. 1119, the FY1998 defense
authorization bill into law (P.L. 105-85). The Senate had approved the conference
agreement on the bill on November 6 by a vote of 90-10, and the House approved
the conference report on October 28 by a vote of 268-123. Earlier, on September
25, the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement on the FY1998
defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2266, and the President signed the measure into
law (P.L. 105-56) on October 8. The agreement resolved differences between the two
houses on a number of contentious issues, including B-2 bomber funding, withdrawal
of troops from Bosnia, contractor teaming to produce the New Attack Submarine,
some other shipbuilding programs, and funding for tactical aircraft programs. The
B-2 and Bosnia compromises avoided a threatened veto by the White House. On
October 14, the White House announced that the President had exercised his line-
item veto authority to delete funding for 13 projects totaling $144 million.
Background: Content of Defense Authorization and
Appropriations Bills
The annual defense appropriations bill provides funds for military activities of the
Department of Defense (DOD) — including pay and benefits of military personnel,
operation and maintenance of weapons and facilities, weapons procurement, and
research and development — and for other purposes. Most of the funding in the bill
is for programs administered by the Department of Defense, though the bill also
provides (1) relatively small, unclassified amounts for the Central Intelligence Agency
retirement fund and intelligence community management and (2) classified amounts
for national foreign intelligence activities administered by the CIA and by other
agencies as well as by DOD. Several other appropriations bills also provide funds for
national defense activities of DOD and other agencies, including:
!the military construction appropriations bill, which finances construction of
military facilities and construction and operation of military family housing, all
administered by DOD;
!the energy and water development appropriations bill, which funds atomic
energy defense activities administered by the Department of Energy;
!the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill, which finances civil
defense activities administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and activities of the Selective Service System; and

!the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which funds defense-related
activities of the FBI.
The defense appropriations bill is by far the largest of the appropriations
measures that provide funding for national defense. In its February budget, the
Administration requested $265.3 billion in new budget authority for the national
defense budget function, of which $243.3 billion was requested in the defense
appropriations bill, $8.4 billion in military construction, $13.6 billion in energy and
water, and the remainder in other appropriations bills.
Along with annual defense-related appropriations, Congress also acts every year
on a national defense authorization bill. In recent years, the defense authorization has
been an omnibus bill that considers funding in all of the appropriations measures
discussed above. The authorization bill addresses defense programs in almost
precisely the same level of line item detail as the defense-related appropriations bills.
Differences between the authorization and appropriations measures within each House
generally concern only a few programs. As a result, congressional debate over major
defense policy and funding issues usually occurs mainly in action on the authorization
bill. Because the defense authorization and appropriations bills are so closely
related, this report discusses congressional action on both measures, though it
focuses on the progress of the appropriations process.
Status
The status of congressional action on FY1998 defense authorization and
appropriations bills is as follows:
!House authorization: On June 11, the House National Security Committee
completed markup of its version of the FY1998 defense authorization bill,
H.R. 1119, and floor consideration began on June 19. On June 19, the House
bill was amended to include parts of H.R. 1778, the "Defense Reform Act,"
that impose reductions in defense overhead activities and make changes in
acquisition regulations. The House passed H.R. 1119 on June 25.
!Senate authorization: The Senate Armed Services Committee completed
markup of its initial version of the authorization bill, S. 924, on June 12. Later,
on June 18, the Committee reported a renumbered bill, S. 936, which
eliminated provisions regarding workloads at aircraft maintenance depots (see
below for a discussion). This version of the bill was taken up on the floor on
June 19 and 20, and action resumed on July 7. The Senate passed the bill on
July 11. On July 11, the Senate also formally took up the House-passed bill,
deleted all after the enacting clause, and inserted its own version, so the
conference proceeded on the bill with the House number.
!House-Senate authorization conference: On October 23, House and Senate
conferees announced agreement on the defense authorization bill. The House
approved the conference report on October 28. On October 29, the Senate
tabled a motion by Senator Gramm to delay action on the bill until January,

and the Senate approved a motion to close debate on October 31 and approved
the conference report on November 6 by a vote of 90-10.
!Senate appropriations: On July 8, the Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY1998 defense appropriations
bill, and the full committee completed markup on July 10 and ordered the bill,
S. 1005, to be reported. Floor action began on July 14 and the bill was
approved on July 15. On July 29, the Senate formally took up the House-
passed version of the bill, H.R. 2266, struck all after the enacting clause, and
inserted the text of its own version. Conference action, therefore, proceeded
on the bill with the House number.
!House appropriations: The House National Security Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY1998 defense appropriations bill
on July 8 and 9; the full committee completed its markup and ordered the bill
reported on July 22; the full House passed the bill, H.R. 2266, on July 29.
!House-Senate appropriations conference: Conferees reached agreement on
a compromise version of the bill and ordered the agreement reported on
September 19; the report was filed on September 23; and the House and
Senate approved the conference report on September 25. The President signed
the bill into law on October 8 (P.L. 105-56).
!FY1997 supplemental appropriations and rescissions: On June 12, both
the House and the Senate approved H.R. 1871, a bill making supplemental
appropriations and rescissions for FY1997. This bill was passed in place of an
earlier measure, H.R. 1469, that the White House had vetoed because of two
policy provisions, one to prevent a government shutdown at the end of the
fiscal year and another to prohibit the use of sampling in the 2000 census. The
new bill was signed into law later on June 12. Along with funding for domestic
disaster relief, the bill provides $1.9 billion for the Department of Defense,
mainly to cover costs of contingency operations in Bosnia and Southwest Asia.
The bill also rescinds $1.9 billion of defense funds to offset the supplemental
amounts. (For a full discussion of supplemental funding, see CRS Issue Brief
97029, Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1997, Stephen
Daggett, coordinator.)

Status of FY1998 Defense Appropriations
^{Subcommittee Markup}^House^House^Senate^Senate^Conference^{Conference Report}^Approval
^Report^Passage^Report^Passage^Report^{Public Law}
^House^Senate^House^Senate
^{July 22}^{July 10}^{Sept. 23}^{July 29}^{July 15}^{Sept. 25}^{Sept. 25 (93-}^{Oct. 8 (P.L.}
^{July 9}^{July 8}^(H.Rept.^(S.Rept.^{(H.Rept. 105-}^(322-105)^(94-4)^(356-65)⁵⁾^105-56)
^105-206)^105-45²⁶⁵⁾
Defense Budget Trends
The White House-congressional budget agreement that was finalized on May 19
establishes recommended levels of budget authority and outlays for the national
defense budget function for the five years from FY1998 through FY2002 (see below
for a discussion of the relationship between budget authority and outlays). Under the
agreement, budget authority for national defense will increase slightly in nominal
terms, but, when adjusted for inflation, will decline modestly through FY2000 and
then essentially level off. By FY2002, budget authority for national defense will be
about 38% below its peak in FY1985. Table 1 shows the trend in current year dollars
and in constant FY1998 prices.
Table 1. National Defense Budget Projections Under the
White House-Congressional Budget Agreement
(current and constant FY1998 dollars in billions)
Fiscal Year1985199719981999200020012002.......
Budget Authority
Current year dollars294.7 .......264.9268.2270.8274.8281.3289.1
Constant FY1998 dollars425.9 .......271.8268.2264.9262.8262.8263.8
Real growth/decline-2.8%-1.3%-1.2%-0.8%+0.0%+0.4%
Cumulative growth/decline-36.2%-37.0%-37.8%-38.3%-38.3%-38.1%
Outlays
Current year dollars252.7 .......266.6266.0265.8268.4270.1272.6
Constant FY1998 dollars368.9 .......273.5266.0260.1256.7252.5249.0
Real growth/decline-1.9%-2.8%-2.2%-1.3%-1.7%-1.4%
^Sources^{: House and Senate Budget Committees; deflators from DOD Comptroller.}
The cuts in the defense budget over the past several years have been achieved
mainly by reducing the size of the military force and by slowing the pace of weapons
modernization. Active duty military end-strength will decline from about 2.2 million
in FY1987 to about 1.45 million by the end of FY1997 under Administration plans,
a reduction of about 33%. The number of divisions in the Army and Marine Corps,
ships in the Navy, and air wings in the Air Force have fallen accordingly. Under plans
established by the Quadrennial Defense Review, released on May 19, the active duty

force will decline to about 1.36 million over the next few years, 36% below the
FY1987 level.
Funding for weapons acquisition has declined even more steeply than the force
structure. The initial FY1998 budget requested $42.6 billion for weapons
procurement and $35.9 billion for research, development, test and evaluation
(RDT&E). Adjusted for inflation, proposed procurement funding is 69% below the
level in FY1985 and the total for procurement plus R&D is down by 57%. The level
of procurement funding is a matter of ongoing debate. A key goal of the Quadrennial
Defense Review is to increase procurement funding over the next several years,
mainly by reducing defense civilian personnel levels and transferring the savings to
weapons acquisition. By FY2001, the Administration projects $60 billion for
procurement, and by FY2002, $68 billion (see Table A2 in the appendix). To reach
these levels, however, depends on (1) achieving projected savings through reforms
in defense business practices and (2) controlling the growth of operation and
maintenance expenses (see below for a further discussion).
Key Budget and Policy Issues
Debate over the level of defense spending has been resolved, at least for the
present, by the White House-congressional budget agreement reached in May. The
budget agreement also resolves a troubling technical issue concerning the balance
between defense budget authority and outlays in FY1998. A substantial imbalance
between budget authority and outlays appears to remain in FY2002, however.
With the budget battle at least temporarily in abeyance, the major issues now
concern trade-offs within the defense budget and implementation of longer term
Administration defense priorities. In action on the FY1996 and FY1997 budgets,
Congress added substantial amounts to Administration defense requests. The money
went mainly to increase purchases of major weapons requested by each of the military
services. Congress had much less room to add to the FY1998 request, however. As
a result, increased funding for some programs had to be offset by reductions in others.
This led to disputes, both within Congress and between Congress and the
Administration, over defense priorities. Missile defense, B-2 bomber procurement,
tactical aircraft procurement, Navy shipbuilding, and Department of Energy nuclear
weapons activities were among the programs that were the focus of debate.
A related issue remains unresolved -- how Congress will respond to proposals
the Administration made in the “Quadrennial Defense Review” (QDR), a review of
defense strategy and force planning that the Defense Department released on May 19.
The QDR proposed additional rounds of base closures and other reductions in defense
infrastructure; substantial reductions in civilian personnel levels through outsourcing
and other measures; smaller reductions in active duty and reserve troop levels; and
adjustments in a number of weapons programs. Without these changes, the Defense
Department says, sufficient funding will not be available to finance needed weapons
modernization over the next several years. Congress has not been receptive to a new
round of base closures, however. In addition, in the past, Congress has rejected
proposals to privatize some support activities, and cuts in force levels have also been

contentious. Congressional action on these issues is a critical test of the fate of the
QDR.
Finally, a number of other matters also arise every year in debate over defense
legislation. Social issues, such as abortions in military hospitals, gays in the military,
and sales of obscene materials on military bases, have been contentious in recent
years. This year, debate focused on the role of women in the military, combined sex
training, sexual harassment, and the application of rules against adultery. The use of
military force abroad is often a matter of contention, and this year, Congress debated
whether to set a date for withdrawing U.S. ground forces from Bosnia. Defense
burdensharing is often an issue, and this year the debate was compounded by the issue
of NATO expansion. Finally, matters affecting the quality of life in the military and
benefits for military retirees and dependents often arise. This year, retirees and
military dependents were greatly concerned about trends in military health care, and
Congress addressed the issue.
The following discussion (1) reviews action on overall funding levels for defense
in the annual congressional budget resolution, (2) discusses debate over major
weapons programs and other defense priorities, (3) highlights congressional action on
aspects of the QDR, and (4) identifies other issues that have been matters of debate.
Budget Resolution Funding Levels for Defense
The first stage in the congressional budget process each year is action on the
annual congressional budget resolution. The budget resolution sets ceilings on budget
authority and outlays for each major functional category of the budget, including
national defense — budget function number 050. The budget resolution includes
projections of funding for each budget function for the budget year and at least four
more years. This year’s resolution extends through FY2002, the target year for
balancing the budget.
For the past two years, annual budget resolutions have provided for substantial
congressional additions to the Administration’s defense budget request, including an
increase of about $7 billion in budget authority for defense in the FY1996 budget and
$11.2 billion in the FY1997 budget. Final congressional appropriations each year
added about as much as the budget resolution recommended. Last year’s
congressional budget resolution, passed in June of 1996, projected that Congress
would add another $9.4 billion in budget authority to the amount that the
Administration was then projecting for FY1998. In preparing its FY1998 budget
request, however, the Administration added substantially to the amount it had planned
for national defense. Specifically, the Administration added (1) $2.6 billion to the
Department of Defense budget, mainly to protect weapons procurement accounts;
(2) $3.6 billion for Department of Energy defense-related activities, partly to provide
advance funding for major capital projects and partly to privatize cleanup activities,
and (3) $300 million for defense-related activities of other agencies.
As a result, the difference between Congress and the Administration over the
FY1998 defense budget was reduced to $2.9 billion in budget authority.
Congressional Budget Office scoring of the Administration request further eroded the
difference to about $2.6 billion. For future years, the June 1996 congressional budget

resolution proposed funding levels that were below those the Administration was
projecting in FY2000-2002. Negotiations between the White House and
congressional leaders over a plan to balance the budget by FY2002 ultimately
resolved the issue essentially by providing the higher of either congressional or
Administration budget authority numbers for defense for each year from FY1998
through FY2002. Table 2 compares the May 1997 budget agreement with earlier
Administration and congressional budget plans.
The budget agreement also resolves a troubling technical issue that had
concerned congressional defense committees. As Table 2 notes, the budget
compromise provides $6.6 billion more in outlays for FY1998 than the Administration
had projected, and $3.0 billion more than Congress estimated last year. This
eliminates a severe mismatch between budget authority and outlays that arose when
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided its estimates of outlays likely to
result from the Administration’s request. To explain — when Congress appropriates
funds for defense or other discretionary programs, it provides budget authority, which
allows agencies to hire personnel or sign contracts for goods and services. Outlays,
however, occur only when checks are actually issued for salaries or for progress
payments on contracts. Outlays in any given year, resulting from new budget
authority and from budget authority provided in prior years, must be estimated based
on historical experience.
Table 2: Administration and Congressional
National Defense Budget Projections
(current year dollars in billions)
Total
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 98-02
Administration Projection (February 1997)^a
Budget Authority265.3269.2275.0281.5289.11,380.0
Outlays 259.4 261.4 267.2 268.0 273.2 1,329.2
FY1997 Congressional Budget Resolution (June 1996)
Budget Authority268.2270.8273.3276.0278.81,367.1
Outlays 263.0 266.3 270.0 269.0 269.0 1,337.3
May 1997 Budget Compromise/FY1998 Congressional Budget Resolution
Budget Authority268.2270.8274.8281.3289.11,384.2
Outlays 266.0 265.8 268.4 270.1 272.6 1,342.9
Change to Administration Plan
Budget Authority+2.9+1.6-0.2-0.2+0.0+4.2
Outlays +6.6 +4.4 +1.2 +2.1 -0.6 +13.7
Change to FY1997 Congressional Budget Resolution
Budget Authority+0.0+0.0+1.5+5.3+10.3+17.1
Outlays +3.0 -0.5 -1.6 +1.1 +3.6 +5.6
^Source^:^{Congressional Research Service calculations based on}^{OMB data, the FY1997 Congressional}
^{Budget Resolution, and data from the House and Senate Budget Committees.}
^{a. Does not reflect CBO scoring of the Administration request.}
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated that defense outlays
in FY1998 would total $259.4 billion if Congress were to approve the Administration

request for $265.3 billion in new budget authority for national defense. In its
assessment of the Administration plan, initially reported on March 4, CBO estimated
that approval of the Administration program would entail defense outlays in FY1998
of $265.0 billion, $5.6 billion higher. The budget compromise resolved the issue by
providing $266.0 billion in national defense outlays, enough to accommodate CBO
scoring with room for an additional $2.6 billion in budget authority.
The outlay problem has not disappeared, however. Both CBO and the Defense
Department now calculate that the budget compromise will lead to an imbalance
between budget authority and outlays in FY2002 — CBO estimates outlays
$4.9 billion above the level in the budget resolution for FY2002, and DOD has
calculated a gap of $5-6 billion. This issue will have to be resolved in the future.
Priorities Within the Defense Budget
For the past two years, Congress added substantial amounts to Administration
defense budget requests, mainly to finance additional weapons purchases. Under the
budget compromise, however, Congress had only $2.6 billion to add to the request
(using CBO scoring). In action on the defense authorization and appropriations bills,
this led the congressional defense committees to reorder priorities within the defense
budget substantially.
One source of funding for congressionally supported programs was an
Administration request to increase funding for Department of Energy (DOE)
weapons-related activities. In its FY1998 request, the Administration proposed two
major initiatives that substantially increased the amount of budget authority (though
not of outlays) that it wanted for DOE defense programs. First, the Administration
requested $1.5 billion to provide full funding in advance for major DOE construction
projects. In the past, DOE had paid for construction incrementally, asking Congress
only to provide funds for progress payments on contracts. Full funding would follow
the method used to finance most Department of Defense projects. Second, the
Administration requested $1 billion to provide advance funding for environmental
cleanup projects for which it wants bids from private industry. Advance funding,
officials say, would make the bids more attractive. Neither of these requests had any
outlay implications in FY1998. HNSC turned down both requests, freeing up budget
authority for other defense programs. This increased the amount available for
congressional add-ons to more than $5 billion. SASC also rejected the
Administration’s new initiatives, except for $215 million for cleanup privatization.
Similar priorities were implied by the House Appropriations Committee
allocations to the subcommittees under Sections 302(b)/602(b) of the congressional
budget act -- the House allocated $248.3 billion to the defense subcommittee, which
was $4.4 billion above the amount the Administration had requested. The Senate
Appropriations Committee, in contrast, allocated $247.2 billion to the defense
subcommittee. The compromise reached in the conference agreement on the defense
appropriations bill provides $247.7 billion for defense, $3.8 billion above the
Administration request.

With the additional money, the congressional defense committees have been able
to finance a wide range of high-priority programs. Highlights of congressional action
include:
!Pay raises: All of the defense bills provide for a 2.8% military pay raise, as the
Administration requested. This is equal to the increase in the Employment
Cost Index (ECI). HNSC also added a requirement that future pay raises
equal the ECI. Current policy calls for Federal pay raises to be one-half
percent below the ECI. The Administration opposes the HNSC proposal to
treat military service members differently from Federal civilian workers.
!Military construction: The House authorization bill provided $9.1 billion for
military construction, $750 million above the request. Much of the increase
was for housing improvements. The House-passed version of the military
construction appropriations bill, H.R. 2016, approved on July 8, followed the
authorization. The Senate authorization added $700 million to the request,
also with a focus on housing, and the Senate military construction
appropriations bill, passed on July 22, followed the Senate authorization. The
conference agreement on the appropriations bill, passed in the House on
September 16 and in the Senate on September 17, provides $9.2 billion, and
the authorization conference agreement provides the same amount. In the first
use of his line-item veto authority, on October 6, the President vetoed $187
million of projects in the bill (see below for a further discussion).
!Ballistic Missile Defense: In February, the Administration requested
$3.0 billion for ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs, including
$504 million for national missile defense (NMD) development. The
Quadrennial Defense Review determined that increased funding for NMD was
required, and, in May, Secretary of Defense Cohen sent a letter to
congressional defense committees requesting an increase of $474 million in
FY1998 for NMD programs. The House-passed authorization bill provided
$3.8 billion for BMD programs, about $750 million more than the initial
Administration request and $343 million above the revised request. The total
included $978 million for national missile defense (NMD) programs, $474
million above the initial request, as Cohen had asked in May. The House bill
also added selectively to theater missile defense (TMD) programs — the
largest increase was for the Navy Theater Wide program, which Congress has
long favored. The Senate authorization provided the same amount for NMD
and also increased Navy Theater Wide funding. A major difference between
the House and the Senate concerned the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) program. The House authorization added money to THAAD,
which the Administration had proposed slowing due to technical problems.
The Senate authorization reduced THAAD funding by $200 million below the
Administration request. While cutting the FY1998 THAAD budget, SASC
instructed DOD to add $340 million to the program in FY1999-2000. Thus,
SASC and HNSC both supported THAAD, but differed on the timing of funds
in view of the program's technical difficulties. The House appropriations bill
differed from the authorization (it reduced THAAD funding by $56 million),
while the Senate appropriation followed the authorization. The conference
agreement on the appropriations bill reduced THAAD funding for FY1998 by

$150 million, and the authorization conference agreement follows suit. (See
Table A-6, below, for a summary of congressional action on BMD programs.)
The authorization bills also took some action on BMD policy issues. The
House and Senate bills both prohibit the transfer of BMD procurement funding
to the military services. The House bill revises dates that were established in
the FY1996 defense authorization bill for deployment of TMD systems. The
Senate bill requires a 1999 test of a national missile defense system. The
conference agreement includes the Senate provisions to establish a date for
testing an NMD system, but does not include the House provisions to set dates
for TMD deployment. In the House, Rep. Weldon has recently proposed a
freestanding bill, H.R. 2786, to authorize additional money to accelerate TMD
programs.
!Tactical aircraft: Three major new tactical aircraft programs are in different
stages of the acquisition process — the Navy F/A-18E/F multirole fighter, the
Air Force F-22 air superiority fighter, and the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) development program. The House and Senate are substantially at odds
on fighter aircraft programs, though both have continued to support all three
programs for the present. HNSC reduced requested funding for the F-18 and
reallocated funding for the JSF to accelerate development of the Navy version
of the aircraft. SASC, in contrast, approved the requested F-18 amount, but
cut F-22 funding substantially, citing concerns about development costs. The
Senate appropriations bill also cut F-22 funding. The House appropriations bill
did not go along with the HNSC cut in the F-18, but otherwise followed the
authorization. In a significant action on the floor, the Senate rejected an
amendment to the authorization bill by Senator Feingold to require DOD to
report on which of the programs it would cancel if funds are not sufficient for
all three. The Senate approved an amendment by Senator Bumpers, however,
to cap the total cost of the F-22 program at $43 billion, and a similar provision
is included in the authorization conference report. The House and Senate also
differed on procurement of current generation aircraft — the House bills added
funding for 3 unrequested F-16 aircraft, while the Senate bills added funds for
3 additional F-15s. The appropriations conference report resolved the issues
as follows: It provides full funding as requested for 20 F/A-18E/F aircraft,
which HNSC would cut; it supported continued development of the F-22,
though, as the House proposed, $6 million is shifted from advance
procurement to R&D; it provided funding for 5 F-15s, one fewer than the
Senate wanted, and also for 3 F-16s, as the House proposed; and it provided
about $15 million more than requested for JSF development, splitting the
difference between the House and the Senate. The authorization bill follows
the appropriations on all of these issues.
!B-2 bomber: The House-passed authorization and appropriations bills added
$331 million to the Administration request to resume production of B-2
bombers — this was intended as a first step toward buying 9 more aircraft over
the next several years. In a key floor vote on the authorization bill, the House
rejected an amendment by Representatives Kasich and Dellums to eliminate the
additional B-2 funds. Later, the House rejected a similar amendment to the
appropriations bill by Representative Obey. In contrast, the Senate provided
no additional funds for the B-2, and the Senate Armed Services Committee

explicitly rejected procurement of new bombers. The Administration
vigorously opposed resuming B-2 production, arguing that the $21-27 billion
cost of 9 more aircraft is not available in future budgets, and the White House
threatened a veto over the issue. In the end, the appropriations conference
agreement essentially abandoned the cause of new B-2 procurement. It
provides a total of $331 million for B-2 procurement, $157 million more than
the Administration had requested but $174 million less than the total the House
provided, and it permits the Administration to spend the additional funds either
on advance procurement of new aircraft or on repairs and upgrades to existing
bombers. The appropriations conference agreement also establishes a panel to
review bomber requirements. The authorization conference followed the
appropriations measure, adding a requirement that the Administration keep
open the option of resuming B-2 production until after the panel report is
delivered.
!Army helicopters: In the past, Congress has consistently added money to
defense requests to keep a number of helicopter production lines going. The
House authorization and appropriations bills provided unrequested funding for
21 OH-58D Kiowa scout helicopters and funding for 12 additional Blackhawk
utility helicopters (for a total of 30). The Senate authorization and
appropriations bills provided funding for 36 Blackhawks, 6 more than the
House. The House authorization also added funds to accelerate RAH-66
Comanche helicopter development, though the appropriations bill did not. The
appropriations conference agreement does not provide additional funds for the
Kiowa program for the first time in several years. It also provides for 28
Blackhawks, fewer than either House, and does not add to Comanche. The
authorization conference agreement follows the appropriations.
!New aircraft carrier procurement: The Senate authorization and appropriations
bills provided $345 million in advance procurement funding for CVN-77, the
next aircraft carrier, for which the Administration plans to request full funding
in FY2001. This supports a contractor proposal, called the "Smart Buy" plan,
to reduce total program costs by providing early funding. The House bills did
not provide additional funds. The appropriations and authorization conference
agreements provide a $50 million down payment.
!DDG-51 destroyer: The House bills approved the request for $2.8 billion for
three ships — the Senate authorization and appropriations bills added $720
million for an additional ship. The appropriations and authorization conference
agreements provide funding for the fourth destroyer.
!Amphibious ships: The House bills provided $185 million in partial funding for
LPD-18, the second of a new class of amphibious ships. The Senate
authorization and appropriations bills did not provide funds. The
appropriations and authorization conference agreements provide $100 million.
!New Attack Submarine (NAS): House and Senate bills all provided requested
funding for one boat in FY1998, but the House and Senate authorizing
committees differed substantially on the long-term plan for acquiring the NAS.
HNSC denied the Administration’s request for multi-year procurement of new

submarines under a plan that would allow Newport News Shipbuilding of
Virginia and General Dynamics Electric Boat Division of Connecticut to team
together on the project. HNSC instead reaffirmed its desire for a competitive
prototyping strategy. SASC explicitly endorsed the teaming approach.
Though neither appropriations committee had addressed the issue, the
appropriations conference report permits the teaming and also allows the Navy
to sign a multiyear procurement contract, as requested. The authorization
conference agreement follows the appropriations.
!Arsenal Ship/Maritime Fire Support Demonstrator: The Maritime Fire
Support Demonstrator (MFSD), previously known as the arsenal ship
demonstrator, is a large surface ship that the Administration wants to build to
conduct at-sea demonstrations of technologies intended for use in the planned
Surface Combatant for the 21st Century (SC-21). For FY1998, the
Administration requested $150 million in funding to complete the MFSD's
design and begin building it. The House authorization and appropriation bills
rejected the proposal to build the MFSD and included no funding for it. The
Senate-passed versions supported building the ship, though at differing funding
levels: The SASC report on the authorization bill recommended $175 million,
a $25-million increase over the request, while the SAC report on the
appropriation bill recommended $67 million, an $83-million decrease.
Following committee markups, the Navy and DARPA reportedly asked
Congress to approve at least $85 million in FY1998 funding for the ship. The
appropriations and authorization conference reports, however, provide only
$35 million. On October 24, Navy officials announced the Secretary of
Defense Cohen had signed of on the Navy's decision to terminate the program.
!National Guard and Reserve equipment: The House authorization added $700
million for guard and reserve equipment, the House appropriations bill added
$800 million, and the Senate authorization and appropriations bills added $653
million. The appropriations conference report provides $653 million and the
authorization conference report provides $643 million. Additional funding for
equipment designated for the Guard and Reserve is provided in other
appropriations accounts — the House National Security Committee reported
that a total of about $2.2 billion is provided for Guard and Reserve equipment
from all sources in the defense authorization conference agreement.
Implementing the Quadrennial Defense Review
As in the past couple of years, most of the funding that Congress has added to
the Administration's request for FY1998 is for weapons procurement and
development. The defense appropriations conference report adds about $3 billion to
the Administration request for new weapons and $500 million for R&D (note: these
figures take account of an across-the-board reduction of 1.5% in procurement and
R&D required by Section 8043 of the conference agreement and an additional
reduction of $474 million in R&D required by Section 8048), and the authorization
bill provides comparable increases. In the past, the Administration has often criticized
congressional additions (1) for adding programs that will have substantial costs in the
future when budgets will be tighter and (2) for continuing procurement of current
generation weapons when the critical task is to develop the next generation. At the

same time, however, the Defense Department has agreed that funding for weapons
procurement, especially, should turn up substantially over the next few years in order
to finance needed weapons modernization. The official goal has been to increase
procurement to about $60 billion by the turn of the century — the current
Administration program calls for a $60 billion procurement budget in FY2001. It has,
however, proved difficult to increase procurement spending as planned. When it
submitted the FY1998 budget request in February, for example, the Administration
requested $42.6 billion for procurement. Just a year earlier, however, DOD had
projected a budget of $45.5 billion for procurement in FY1998. The reason for the
decline was that the operation and maintenance budget had grown by $5.1 billion,
partly to finance military operations abroad, and partly because weapons maintenance
costs had climbed. The cut in procurement was limited to $2.9 billion only because
the President agreed to add $2.6 billion to the overall DOD budget.
Such "migration" of funds from O&M to procurement accounts has occurred in
each of the past four years, and the problem of protecting planned increases in
procurement was a major focus of attention in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense
Review. In order to allow spending for weapons modernization to turn up adequately
in the future, the QDR proposed a number of steps, including modest reductions in
the size of the active duty force, significant cuts in Army guard and reserve force
levels, substantial cuts in civilian personnel levels, another round of base closures,
authority to outsource defense support activities, and other measures to reduce
defense overhead. Implementation of the QDR recommendations depends on
congressional action. Judging by House and Senate action to date, the congressional
reaction is at best mixed.
The House and Senate specifically and pointedly rejected the Administration
request to enact legislation implementing another two rounds of military base
closures. Indeed, the Senate approved an amendment to the authorization bill by
Senator Dorgan requiring improved accounting for base closure costs and savings
before another round is proposed. HNSC also rejected an Administration request to
repeal a rule that reserves 60 percent of weapons depot maintenance work for publicly
owned facilities. SASC, in contrast, endorsed a shift to a 50-50 split between public
and private facilities, though it broadened the definition of the depot work to include
logistics activities that were earlier open to private industry.
Perhaps most importantly, HNSC rejected proposed cuts in active and reserve
troop levels and, instead, reaffirmed a floor on active duty troop levels that had been
included in the FY1997 defense authorization bill. The House appropriations bill,
however, endorsed cuts in active duty troop levels. SASC agreed to cuts in both
active and reserve troop levels. The funding provided in the appropriations
conference report implies reduced troop levels. The authorization conference
agreement accepts most of the cuts in active and reserve force levels that the
Administration has proposed, though it maintains a floor of 495,000 on Army active
duty end-strength, which is higher than the QDR proposed.
Instead of following the QDR recommendations, HNSC approved a number of
quite different measures to improve defense efficiency, including some that DOD has
found difficult to accept. The efficiency measures in the House-passed authorization
bill and final conference action are as follows:

!HNSC imposed a 20% cut in funding for operations of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and a requirement that DOD provide previously
mandated reports on the functions of OSD. This cut is not included in the
authorization conference agreement.
!HNSC required a cut of 25% over five years in military service headquarters
and management staffs. The authorization conference agreement imposes a
25% cut over five years in management headquarters and headquarters support
personnel.
!HNSC required a 42% reduction over five years in the defense acquisition
work force. The authorization conference report requires a cut of 25,000
positions in FY1998 but allows the Secretary of Defense to waive part of the
reduction.
!HNSC mandated public-private competition for defense financial services,
computer and telecommunications services, printing services, and a number of
other activities. The authorization conference agreement mandates
competition for a somewhat smaller list of activities.
!HNSC also made a series of other reforms in acquisition rules and regulations,
some of which are included in the authorization conference agreement.
In testimony before HNSC on June 17, DOD Comptroller John Hamre
complained that the civilian personnel reductions that HNSC was proposing could not
be implemented under civil service regulations and that the cuts are too deep in any
event. The authorization conference agreement appears more acceptable to the
Defense Department. The overall policy issue is remains unresolved, however. The
QDR has focused attention on efforts to improve efficiency in the Department of
Defense as the one means available to finance increased weapons purchases. The
Administration and Congress appear substantially at odds, however, over means to
achieve savings.
Other Issues
Other issues range across a broad spectrum, from U.S. policy in Bosnia, to
combined sex training, to environmental cleanup of defense facilities. This year,
matters of debate included —
!Bosnia policy: In action on supplemental funding and rescissions earlier this
year, the Senate approved a measure that would have cut off funds for U.S.
ground forces in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, the date the Administration had
tentatively set for ending the current mission. This provision was dropped
from the conference agreement, however. HNSC did not include a measure
cutting off funds for Bosnia in its version of the FY1998 defense authorization
bill, but instead required various reports on Bosnia costs and policy. On the
floor, however, the House approved an amendment by Representative Buyer
cutting off funds for U.S. ground forces in Bosnia after of June 30, 1998 —
the House rejected a substitute by Representative Hilleary to require
withdrawal by December 31, 1997. On July 11, the Senate adopted an

amendment by Senator Levin and others to the authorization bill expressing the
sense of the Congress that U.S. ground forces should be withdrawn by June
30, 1998 — the amendment would not cut off funds. The Administration
warned that a rigid cutoff of funds will prompt a veto. The House-passed
defense appropriations bill included a cutoff of funds identical to the provision
in the authorization bill. The issue was resolved in the defense appropriations
conference report in a fashion that appears to give the Administration some
flexibility to extend the mission in Bosnia, though Congress may have an
opportunity to address the issue in debate over supplemental funding. Section

8132 of the bill cuts off funds for troops in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless,

by May 15, 1998, the President certifies that a continued presence is needed
to meet U.S. national security interests. The certification must include a
statement of the expected duration of the mission and describe an exit strategy.
Along with the certification, the Administration is also required to submit a
request for supplemental funding to cover costs of the extended mission. This
request could be come a vehicle for congressional opposition. The
authorization conference agreement included the same requirements.
!Aircraft maintenance depot work loads: The most difficult issue to resolve in
this year's defense debate concerns workloads at Air Force aircraft
maintenance depots. This issue has important implications for the ongoing
debate over base closures. In 1995, the Base Closure Commission
recommended shutting down two of five Air Force “Air Logistics Centers”
(ALCs). ALCs are large industrial facilities that perform overhauls of aircraft.
Although the Administration did not propose eliminating any ALCs, the
Commission found that there was not enough work for all of the facilities and
recommended closing the ALCs at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento,
California, and Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. This would
concentrate work at remaining ALCs in Utah, Oklahoma, and Georgia.
Instead of closing the McClellan and Kelly facilities, however, the Clinton
Administration devised a “privatization in place” strategy, which would allow
the facilities to operate under private ownership. This plan came under
increasingly vocal criticism, among other things, for allegedly politicizing the
base closure process. Both HNSC and SASC versions of the authorization bill
initially included provisions to protect work loads at the remaining public
ALCs before work could go to the privatized facilities. Because of his
objections to the SASC provision, Senator Gramm held up Senate action on
the bill until the relevant provisions were removed. The House, however,
rejected a floor amendment by Representative Everett to remove similar
provisions from the HNSC version of the bill. The Administration threatened
to veto the final authorization bill if it included a provision that would restrict
competition for work by the privatized ALCs. The authorization conference
agreement includes a measure that will allow competition between the public
facilities and the privatized depots but requires that "core" work, defined as
that essential to carry out primary military missions, be reserved for the public
facilities. Senators from Texas and California continued to object to the
compromise language, however, and, in an October 28 letter to Senate leaders,
OMB Director Franklyn Raines said that the President's senior advisors would
recommend a veto unless there are changes in the depot provisions. In the
end, however, the President decided not to veto the bill over the depot issue

and signed the bill into law on November 18. (For a further discussion, see
David Lockwood, Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, CRS
Report 97-674.)
!Combined sex training: Earlier in the year, Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-
MD), a member of the House National Security Committee Personnel
Subcommittee, proposed a measure that would limit same sex training in the
military. During subcommittee markup, however, he relented and instead
proposed a study of the issue. The Senate authorization also establishes a
commission to review gender-integrated training and other “practices
governing personal relationships” within DOD. The authorization conference
agreement establishes a panel to study the issue.
!Abortions in military hospitals: On June 19, the House rejected a floor
amendment to the defense authorization bill by Representative Harman to
allow privately funded abortions in U.S. military hospitals abroad. On July 10,
the Senate rejected an amendment to the authorization by Senator Murray to
repeal the prohibition on abortions at DOD facilities. The issue was not,
therefore, a matter of dispute in conference negotiations.
!Environmental cleanup: HNSC proposed a very broad series of reforms of
environmental regulations governing the Defense Department as part of the
committee-passed version of H.R. 1778. Some of these are provisions DOD
has supported, including a measure to allow consideration of future land use
in establishing cleanup remedies (so that an industrial site need not meet
criteria for a day care center, for example). Such steps have been under
consideration in Superfund legislation that has been under review in the
Commerce Committee for time. As a result, Commerce Committee Chairman
Bliley and others strongly objected to consideration of the environmental
measures as part of the defense authorization bill, and the environmental
provisions were stripped from the amendment that was added to H.R. 1119.
!Military medical programs: The House and Senate versions of the
authorization and appropriations bills all agreed to an increase of $274 million
to the Administration’s FY1998 initial request for military health care to cover
a shortfall which the DOD Comptroller identified only after the budget was
submitted. Military medical costs have frequently exceeded DOD estimates,
however, and long-term efforts to control costs are a matter of increasing
controversy. Earlier this year, military retirees objected vigorously to a
reported plan to require a fee for access to defense medical facilities, which
now will treat retirees on a space available basis. No such changes in DOD
medical care programs were proposed in the QDR, however, though a
commission appointed to study additional cost-cutting measures may address
health care issues. On July 8, the Senate approved an amendment to the
authorization bill by Senator Cleland that calls for the Administration to
protect military retiree access to quality health care. Other military medical
care issues abound. DOD plans for relatively low rates of growth in health
care costs over time due to a shift to a competitive managed care system
known as “Tricare.” The General Accounting Office has projected that if cost
growth does not slow as projected, then a shortfall of $8 billion or more over

the next six years could develop. Also, some military dependents have¹
complained about the quality of service being provided under Tricare. Another
health care issue also has to do with provisions for treatment of military
retirees — the Defense Department has supported proposals for military
medical care “subvention,” in which Medicare would pay DOD facilities for
care provided to Medicare-eligible retirees. Congress established a Medicare
subvention test program in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.R. 2015, P.L.

105-33).

!Burdensharing and NATO expansion: The House and Senate approved
identical amendments to the authorization bill urging increased allied
burdensharing contributions. The cost of NATO expansion promises to be a
major issue in Congress in coming months, and the House approved an
amendment by Representative Frank to the authorization bill to limit U.S.
expenditures to no more than $2 billion or 10 percent of the total. The House
also approved an amendment to the defense appropriations bill by
Representative Traficant requiring that all funds for NATO expansion be
authorized by law. The Senate approved an amendment to the appropriations
bill requiring another DOD report on expansion costs. The appropriations
conference agreement includes several provisions that would limit U.S.
expenditures for NATO expansion and require allies to share the cost.
!Cooperative Threat Reduction: HNSC and SASC both reduced funding for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction program — also known as the Nunn-Lugar
program — which provides demilitarization assistance to former Soviet states.
The Senate, however, approved an amendment to the authorization bill by
Senator Lugar to restore funds. The House initially approved, but later
eliminated, an amendment by Representative Rohrbacher that would cut off all
funds for Russia if Russia transfers SS-N-22 cruise missiles to China — the
Administration and Nunn-Lugar supporters strongly opposed trying to use the
program as leverage over Russian policy on issues not directly related to the
purposes of the program. The Senate, however, agreed to a Kyl amendment
to the authorization bill limiting the use of funds for chemical weapons
demilitarization if Russia fails to meet certain standards regarding chemical
weapons programs. The appropriations conference agreement provides the full
amount requested, $382.2 million, for the DOD program. The authorization
conference agreement also provides the full $382.2 million requested and
revises the Kyl amendment to prohibit this year's funds from being used to
construct a chemical demilitarization facility in Russia — presumably this will
provide time to review Russian compliance with chemical weapons
agreements.
!National Guard representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff: On July 11, the
Senate approved an amendment to the authorization bill by Senator Stevens to
establish the position of Senior Representative of the National Guard Bureau
on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This would be a four star level position. The

“GAO Warns of Potential $8.4 Billion Gap in Defense Health Funding,” Inside the¹
Pentagon, February 27, 1997, p. 16.

Defense Department opposed this provision, arguing that it would disrupt
established lines of authority. The authorization conference agreement
establishes two advisors to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the two-star
level, one for the Guard and another for Reserve forces.
The Line Item Veto and Defense
Beginning this year, the President has the authority to cancel particular amounts
of spending within appropriations, reconciliation, and tax bills without vetoing the
entire bill. The Supreme Court turned down a congressional effort to prevent the use
of this authority in advance, though the authority may later be challenged in the courts
after it is exercised. On August 11, the President exercised the line item veto to
delete one funding measure in the Balanced Budget Act (H.R. 2015, P.L. 105-33) and
two tax-related provisions in Revenue Reconciliation Act (H.R. 2014, P.L. 105-34).
Congress passed both bills on July 31. On October 6, the President again used the
line-item veto authority to delete funding for 38 projects totaling $287 million in the
$9.2 billion FY1998 Military Construction Appropriations Act (H.R. 2016, P.L. 105-

45).

The exercise of the line-item veto authority on the military construction bill was
greeted unhappily by many Members of Congress, though a few praised the President
for his substantial cuts in funding. The White House explained that it had applied
several criteria in deciding which projects to cancel, including whether planning for
the projects was far enough along to allow funds to be obligated in FY1998. At a
hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee on October 9, however, several
Senators complained that many of the items that were eliminated had approved plans
that senior officials in the Defense Department and the Office of Management and
Budget apparently were not aware of. On October 22, the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported a bill (S. 1292) to reverse most of the military construction
vetoes, and the Senate approved the measure on October 30. (For a further
discussion, see CRS Report 97-210, Appropriations for FY1998: Military
Construction, by Mary Tyszkiewicz.)
The firestorm over the military construction vetoes led the Administration to
take a more cautious approach in considering line-item vetoes in the defense
appropriations bill. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre reportedly made an
effort to discuss potential veto candidates extensively with House and Senate
appropriations committee members. On October 14, the President announced vetoes
of 13 items totaling $144 million in the defense appropriations act, a relatively modest
amount given the size of the bill (see Table A8, below, for a list of the items vetoed).
Though several Members of Congress were critical of some of the particular cuts, the
strongest criticism came from proponents of the line-item veto authority, who
complained that the President had not used his authority aggressively enough to weed
out unnecessary spending.

Legislation
H.R. 1119 (Spence)
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, and for other purposes. Referred to the House Committee on
National Security, May 19, 1997; full committee markup held and ordered to be
reported (H.Rept. 105-132), June 11, 1997; floor consideration begun, June 19, 1997;
passed by the House, as amended (304-120), June 25, 1997. The Senate deleted all
after the enacting clause, inserted the provisions of S. 936, and adopted the bill by
unanimous consent, July 11, 1997. Conference agreement reached and ordered to be
reported (H.Rept. 105-340), October 23, 1997. House agreed to the conference
report (268-123), October 28, 1997. Senate tabled a motion to delay proceeding to
consideration of the conference report (78-20), October 29, 1997, and voted to close
debate on the motion to proceed (93-2), October 31, 1997. Senate agreed to the
conference report (90-10), November 6, 1997. Signed by the President and became
law (P.L. 105-85), November 18, 1997.
S. 924/936 (Thurmond)
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, and for other purposes. Markup held, June 11-12, 1997, and
S. 924 ordered to be reported (S.Rept. 105-29), June 12, 1997; S. 936 ordered to be
reported (without written report), June 18, 1997. Considered by the Senate, June 19
and 20 and July 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1997. Passed by the Senate, (94-4), July 11, 1997.
The Senate deleted all after the enacting clause, inserted the provisions of S. 936, and
approved H.R. 1119, July 11, 1997.
H.R. 2266 (Young)
A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. Subcommittee markup held, July

8 and 9, 1997; full committee markup held and ordered to be reported (H.Rept. 105-

206), July 22, 1997. Considered by the House and passed, as amended, (322-105),

July 29, 1997. Under previous agreement, received in the Senate, Senate struck all
after the enacting clause and inserted the provisions of S. 1005, and passed in lieu of
S. 1005, July 29, 1997. Conference agreement reached and ordered to be reported,
September 19, 1997; conference report filed (H.Rept. 105-265), September 23, 1997.
Conference reported approved by the House (356-65) and by the Senate (93-5),
September 25, 1997. Signed by the President and became law (P.L. 105-56), October

8, 1997.

S. 1005 (Stevens)
A bill to provide appropriations for military activities of the Department of
Defense and for other purposes. Subcommittee markup held, July 8, 1997; full
committee markup held and ordered to be reported (S.Rept. 105-45), July 10, 1997.
Considered by the Senate, July 14 and 15, 1997. Approved by the Senate (94-4), July

15, 1997. Substituted into the text of H.R. 2266 as passed by the House, July 29,

1997.

Summary Tables
Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998
(budget authority in billions of current year dollars)^a
Actual Actual Actual Estimate Request
FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998

243.1 244.0 242.6 242.4 247.7^b

Sources: FY1997-98 data from FY1998 Defense Appropriations Conference Report, H.Rept.
105-265. FY1996 data from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 1998, February 1997, p. 319. Prior year data from Department of
Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY1997, April 1996 and prior years.
Notes^a^.
These figures represent current year dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect
rescissions.^b^.
The FY1995 total excludes $5.0 billion of contract authority initially projected for the Defense
Business Operations Fund.
Table A2: Administration Defense Plan, February 1997^a
(budget authority, current year dollars in billions)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Military Personnel69.969.570.171.473.375.3
Operation and Maintenance92.993.791.592.293.992.0
Procurement 44.2 42.6 50.7 57.0 60.7 68.3
RDT&E 36.6 35.9 35.0 33.4 32.9 34.2
Military Construction5.94.74.24.34.23.4
Family Housing4.13.73.93.94.03.9
Other -3.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4
Subtotal, Department of Defense250.0251.0256.3262.8269.6277.5
Atomic energy defense activities11.313.611.811.110.810.5
Defense-related activities1.01.01.11.11.11.0
Total, National defense262.3265.6269.2275.0281.5289.1
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States
Government, FY1998, February 1997; Congressional Budget Office.
Note:
a. Reflects CBO scoring of the Administration request for FY1998.

Table A3: Congressional Action on
FY1998 Defense Authorization by Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)^a
House Senate Conference
Change toChange toChange to
Title Request Amount Request Amount Request Amount Request^a
Military Personnel69.569.5+0.169.3-0.269.5-0.0
Operation & Maintenance93.793.1-0.693.7+0.094.3+0.6
Procurement 42.6 46.3 +3.7 46.8 +4.2 45.5 +2.9
RDT&E 35.9 37.3 +1.3 36.9 +1.0 36.5 +0.6
Military Construction4.75.2+0.55.3+0.65.4+0.6
Family Housing3.73.9+0.33.8+0.13.8+0.2
Revolving & Mgmnt. Funds1.91.9-0.01.2-0.71.8-0.2
Trust Funds0.20.1-0.20.30.10.3+0.1
Receipts/Other -1.3 -1.1 0.2 -1.2 0.0 -1.3 +0.0
Total DOD251.0256.3+5.3256.1+5.1255.7+4.8
DOE Defense-Related13.611.0-2.611.2-2.411.5-2.1
Other Defense-Related1.00.9-0.01.0-0.00.9-0.0
Total National Defense265.6268.2+2.6268.2+2.6268.2+2.6
^Sources^{: Department of Defense,}^{Financial Summary Tables: Department of Defense Budget for Fiscal Year 1998}^{, Feb.}
^{1997; House National Security Committee, Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998, H.R. 1119}
^{(H.Rept. 105-132); Senate Armed Services Committee, Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998, S.}
^{924 (S.Rept. 105-29); Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998, H.R. 1119 (H.Rept.}
^105-340).
^Note:
^{a. Reflects CBO scoring of the Administration request.}

Table A4: Congressional Action on
FY1998 Defense Appropriations by Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
House Senate Conference
Change toChange toChange to
Title Request Amount Request Amount Request Amount Request
Military Personnel /a/69.469.3-0.169.7+0.369.5+0.1
Operation & Maintenance /a,b/82.382.9+0.682.7+0.482.9+0.6
Procurement /c/41.645.5+3.945.4+3.845.6+4.1
RDT&E 35.9 36.7 +0.8 36.6 +0.6 37.9 +2.0
Military Construction4.75.2+0.55.4+0.75.4+0.7
Family Housing3.73.9+0.33.8+0.23.9+0.2
Revolving & Mgmnt. Funds2.22.2+0.01.4-0.82.0-0.1
Other Defense Programs /a,d/11.711.8+0.011.8+0.011.8+0.1
Related Agencies /e/0.30.3+0.00.4+0.00.4+0.0
General Provisions0.1-0.4-0.5-0.7-0.8-2.4-2.5
Scorekeeping Adjustments0.40.0-0.40.0-0.40.0-0.4
Total DOD 252.3257.5+5.2256.4+4.1257.0+4.7
DOE Defense-Related13.611.0-2.611.8-1.811.5-2.1
Other Defense-Related0.3NANANANANANA
Defense Appropriations Bill243.9248.3+4.4247.2+3.3247.7+3.8
Military Construction App. Bill8.49.2+0.89.2+0.89.2+0.8
Energy & Water App. Bill13.611.0-2.611.8-1.811.5-2.1
^Sources^:^{Department of Defense,}^{Financial Summary Tables: Department of Defense}^{Budget for Fiscal Year 1998}^{, Feb.}
¹^{997; Senate Appropriations Committee reports on t}^{he FY1998 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, S. 1005 (S.Rept.}
^105-45),^{the FY1998 Military Construction Appropriations bill, H.R. 2016 (S.Rept. 105-52), and the}^{FY1998 Energy and}
^W^{ater Development Appropriation}^{s bill, S. 1004 (S.Rept. 105-44); House Appropriations Committee reports on the FY1998}
^D^{epartment of Defense Appropriations b}^{ill, H.R. 2266 (H.Rept. 105-206), the FY1998 Military Construction Appropriations}
^b^{ill, H.R. 2016 (H.Rept. 105-150), and t}^{he FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, H.R. 2203 (H.Rept.}
^105-190).^{Conference reports on the FY1998 Defense Appropriations bill (H.Rept. 105-265), the FY1998 Militar}^y
^Construction^{Appropriations bill (H.Rept. 105-247),}^{and the FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill,}
^{(H.Rept. 105-271).}
^Notes^:
^a^.^{Request reflects a budget amendment that reduces Military Personnel by $62 million and O&M by $199 million and that}
^{increases the Defense Health Program (in "Other Defense Programs") by $261 million.}
^b^{. O&M in the}^{appropriations bills differs from O&M in the authorization bills mainly because the Defense Health Program}
^a^{nd Drug Interdiction are included in O&M in the authorization but i}^{n "Other Defense Programs" in appropriations. Also O&M}
^l^{evels in the req}^{uest and in House, Senate, and conference bills do not show $150 million financed by transfer from working}
^{capital funds.}
^c^{. Procurement in the appropriations bills dif}^{fers from Procurement in the authorization bills mainly because Chemical Agents}
^a^{nd Munitions Destruction is included in}^{Procurement in the authorization but in "Other Defense Programs" in appropriations.}
^{Also, the appropriations request does not show $400 million financed by transfer from working capital funds.}
^d.^I^{ncludes Defense Health Program, Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Drug Interdiction, and Office of th}^e
^{Inspector General.}
^e.^{Includes CIA Retirement and Disability System Fund, Intelligence Community Management Account, Payment t}^o
^{Kaho'olawe Island Fund, and National Security Education Trust Fund.}

Table A5: Ballistic Missile Defense Funding, FY1998
(millions of dollars)
^Auth.^Approp.^Auth.^Approp.
^House^Senate^Con-^House^Senate^Con-^vs.^vs.
^Request^Auth.^Auth.^ference^Approp.^Approp.^ference^Request^Request
^Procurement
^{Patriot PAC-3}^349.1^349.1^349.1^349.1^349.1^349.1^349.1^0.0^0.0
^{Navy Area Theater}^15.4^15.4^15.4^15.4^15.4^15.4^15.4^0.0^0.0
^{Other (Hawk Upgrades)}^20.1^20.1^20.1^20.1^20.1^20.1^20.1^0.0^0.0
^{TOTAL PROCUREMENT}^0.0^0.0^384.6^384.6^384.6^384.6^384.6^384.6^384.6
^RDT&E
^{Applied Research}
^{62173C Support Technologies}^101.9^111.9^115.9^113.9^141.9^115.9^113.9^+12.0^+12.0
^{Advanced Technology Development}
^{63173C Support Technologies}^147.6^172.6^322.0^306.6^147.6^352.0^311.6^+159.0^+164.0
^{Demonstration and Validation}
^{63861C THAAD Dem/Val}^294.6^294.6^353.4^406.1^238.6^353.4^406.1^+111.5^+111.5
^{63868C Navy Theater Wide}^194.9^344.9^274.9^344.9^444.9^274.9^409.9^+150.0^+215.0
^{63869C MEADS Concepts}^48.0^48.0^48.0^48.0^48.0^48.0^48.0^0.0^0.0
^{63870C Boost Phase Intercept}^12.9^0.0^17.9^16.4^0.0^17.9^16.4^+3.5^+3.5
^{63871C National Missile Defense /a/}^978.1^978.1^978.1^978.1^978.1^978.1^978.1^0.0^0.0
^{63872C J}^{oint Theater Missile Defense}^542.6^523.9^576.6^581.6^542.6^612.6^605.4^+39.0^+62.8
^{63XXXC Cooperative Programs}^--^123.1^--^0.0^--^--^--^0.0^0.0
^{Engineering & Manufacturing Development}
^{64861C THAAD EMD}^261.5^306.5^0.0^0.0^261.5^0.0^0.0^-261.5^-261.5
^{64865C Patriot PAC-3 EMD}^206.1^206.1^206.1^206.1^206.1^206.1^206.1^0.0^0.0
^{64867C Navy Area Defense EMD}^267.8^289.6^267.8^289.8^289.8^267.8^289.8^+22.0^+22.0
^{TOTAL RDT&E}^+235.5^+329.3^3,055.9^3,399.3^3,160.6^3,291.4^3,299.1^3,226.6^3,385.2
^{Military Construction}^0.0^0.0^7.1^7.1^7.1^7.1^7.1^7.1^7.1
^{TOTAL BMD}^+235.5^+329.3^3,447.6^3,791.0^3,552.3^3,683.1^3,690.8^3,618.3^3,776.9
^{a. Reflects revised request -- the original request was for $504.1 million.}

Table A6: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^Request^{House Authorization}^{Senate Authorization}^Conference
^{Authorization}
^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D
^Army
^{M1A2 Tank Upgrade}¹²⁰^594.9^33.3¹²⁰^594.9^33.3¹²⁰^594.9^33.3¹²⁰^594.9^33.3
^{Bradley Base Sustainment}^--^186.8^75.3^--^306.8^85.4^--^249.2^75.3^--^281.8^33.3
^{M109A6 Palidin Howitzer}^--^18.7^--⁷²^111.0^--^--^18.7^--³⁶^74.7^--
^{Field Artillery Support Veh.}^--^--^--⁷²^81.1^--^--^--^--^--^40.0^--
^{OH-58D Kiowa Helicopter}^--^38.8^--²¹^213.8^--^--^53.8^--^--^53.8^--
^{AH-64 Apache Longbow}⁴⁴^511.8^--^--^540.3^--^--^511.8^--⁴⁴^511.8^--
^{UH-60 Blackhawk Helo.}¹⁸^208.2^--³⁰^304.2^--³⁶^335.5^--²⁸^297.2^--
^{RAH-66 Comanche Helo.}^--^--^282.0^--^--^322.0^--^--^282.0^--^--^282.0
^{Navy/Marine Corps}
^{DDG-51 Destroyer}³^2,823.6^87.9³^2,823.6^85.1⁴^3,543.6^116.4⁴^3,543.6^110.1
^{New Attack Submarine}¹^2,599.8^396.5¹^2,599.8^413.5¹^2,614.8^396.5¹^2,599.8^404.5
^{CVN-77 Carrier}^--^--^17.9^--^--^34.9^--^345.0^17.9^--^--^34.9
^{CV(X) R&D}^--^--^90.2^--^--^1.8^--^--^90.2^--^--^12.2
^{LPD-17 Amphib. Ship}^--^--^0.5^--^185.0^0.5^--^--^0.5^--^100.0^0.5
^{Sealift Fund*}^--^1,191.4^--^--^1,181.6^--^--^516.1^--^--^1,059.9^--
^{Arsenal Ship}^--^--^150.2^--^--^0.0^--^--^175.2^--^--^35.0
^{Trident II Missile}⁷^336.6^28.7⁷^336.6^28.7⁷^336.6^28.7⁵^274.3^28.7
^{AV-8B VSTOL Aircraft}¹¹^296.5^11.0¹²^329.6^11.0¹²^386.2^11.0¹²^301.8^11.0
^{F/A-18E/F Fighter}²⁰^2,191.6^267.5^--^1,438.9^153.3²⁰^2,191.6^267.5²⁰^2,191.6^267.5
^{V-22 Aircraft}⁵^541.7^529.5⁷^731.0^529.5⁶^631.7^529.5⁷^689.1^529.5
^{Air Force}
^{B-2 Bomber}^--^174.1^355.8^--^505.3^355.8^--^174.1^377.6^--^331.0^355.8
^{F-15 Fighter}³^170.0^137.5³^170.0^137.5⁶^270.8^137.5⁵^237.3^137.5
^{F-16 Fighter}^--^--^100.2³^66.0^100.2^--^--^100.2³^66.0^100.2
^{F-22 Fighter}^--^80.9^2,071.2^--^80.9^2,071.2^--^0.0^1,651.2^--^74.9^2,077.2
^{C-17 Aircraft}⁹^2,201.5^113.6⁹^2,201.5^113.6⁹^2,201.5^113.6⁹^2,179.8^110.6
^{E-8C (JSTARS)}¹^336.4^119.2¹^336.4^119.2¹^336.4^119.2¹^334.7^119.2
^{Space-Based Infrared Sys.}^--^--^560.8^--^--^560.8^--^--^560.8^--^--^555.6
^{Titan Launch Vehicle}^--^555.3^82.4^--^473.3^82.4^--^455.3^82.4^--^464.3^82.4
^{Joint/Defense-Wide}
^{Joint Strike Fighter}^--^--^930.9^--^--^900.0^--^--^958.8^--^--^945.9
^{Ballistic Missile Defense*}^--^384.6^3,063.0^--^384.6^3,406.4^--^384.6^3,167.8^--^384.6^3,676.1
^G^u^{ard & Reserve Equipment}^--^--^--^--^700.4^--^--^653.0^--^--^--^643.0
^Sources^:^{H.Rept. 105-132; S.Rept. 105-26; House National Security Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee pres}^s
^{releases, October 23, 1997.}
^*Notes^:^{Sealift amount includes operating as well as procurement costs. Totals do not include initial spares or militar}^y
^{construction, except for the BMD amount, which includes military construction in the R&D total.}

Table A7: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^House^Senate^Conference
^Request^{Appropriations}^{Appropriations}^{Appropriations*}
^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D
^Army
^{M1A2 Tank Upgrade}¹²⁰^594.9^33.3^--^594.9^45.3^--^594.9^53.3^--^594.9^51.8
^{Bradley Upgrade/Mods.}^--^186.8^75.3^--^301.8^75.3^--^249.2^90.8^--^281.8^87.3
^{M109A6 Palidin Howitzer}^--^18.7^--^--^74.7^--^--^18.7^--³⁶^74.7^--
^{Field Artillery Support Veh.}^--^--^--^--^40.0^--^--^--^--³⁶^40.0^--
^{OH-58D Kiowa Helicopter}^--^38.8^--^--^213.8^--^--^53.8^--^--^53.8^--
^{AH-64 Apache Longbow}^--^511.8^--^--^511.8^--^--^511.8^--^--^511.8^--
^{UH-60 Blackhawk Helo.}¹⁸^208.2^--³⁰^334.2^--³⁶^335.5^--²⁸^297.2^--
^{RAH-66 Comanche Helo.}^--^--^282.0^--^--^282.0^--^--^282.0^--^--^282.0
^{Navy/Marine Corps}
^{DDG-51 Destroyer}³^2,823.6^87.9³^2,853.2^142.1⁴^3,543.6^122.9⁴^3,569.0^148.1
^{New Attack Submarine}¹^2,599.8^396.5¹^2,599.8^416.5¹^2,599.8^401.5¹^2,599.8^408.5
^{CVN-77 Carrier}^--^--^17.9^--^--^34.9^--^345.0^34.9^--^50.0^34.9
^{CV(X) R&D}^--^--^90.2^--^--^1.8^--^--^90.2^--^--^14.2
^{LPD-17 Amphib. Ship}^--^--^0.5^--^185.0^0.5^--^--^0.5^--^100.0^0.5
^{Sealift Fund*}^--^1,191.4^--^--^1,199.9^--^--^516.1^--^--^1,074.9^--
^{Arsenal Ship}^--^--^150.2^--^--^0.0^--^--^76.0^--^--^35.0
^{Trident II Missile}⁷^336.6^28.7⁷^324.3^28.7⁵^274.3^28.7⁵^274.3^28.7
^{AV-8B VSTOL Aircraft}¹¹^296.5^11.0¹²^329.6^11.0¹²^302.8^11.0¹²^301.8^11.0
^{F/A-18E/F Fighter}²⁰^2,191.6^267.5²⁰^2,191.6^158.3²⁰^2,191.6^241.5²⁰^2,191.6^244.5
^{V-22 Aircraft}⁵^541.7^529.5⁷^731.0^529.5⁷^689.1^529.5⁷^689.1^529.5
^{Air Force}
^{B-2 Bomber}^--^174.1^355.8^--^505.3^355.8^--^157.8^355.8^--^331.0^355.8
^{F-15 Fighter}³^170.0^137.5³^170.0^137.5⁶^270.8^137.5⁵^237.3^137.5
^{F-16 Fighter}^--^--^100.2³^82.5^100.2^--^--^115.2³^82.5^110.2
^{F-22 Fighter}^--^80.9^2,071.2^--^74.9^2,077.2^--^0.0^1,858.2^--^74.9^2,077.2
^{C-17 Aircraft}⁹^2,201.5^113.6⁹^2,179.8^113.6¹¹^2,641.5^113.6⁹^2,179.8^110.6
^{E-8C (JSTARS)}¹^336.4^119.2¹^340.4^123.2¹^331.7^124.2¹^335.7^126.2
^{Space-Based Infrared Sys.}^--^--^560.8^--^--^555.8^--^--^560.8^--^--^555.8
^{Titan Launch Vehicle}^--^555.3^82.4^--^473.3^67.4^--^455.3^82.4^--^464.3^74.9
^{Joint/Defense-Wide}
^{Joint Strike Fighter}^--^--^930.9^--^--^930.9^--^--^958.8^--^--^945.8
^{Ballistic Missile Defense*}^--^384.6^3,063.0^--^384.6^3,306.2^--^384.6^3,233.7^--^384.6^3,392.3
^G^u^{ard & Reserve Equipment}^--^--^--^--^850.0^--^--^653.0^--^--^653.0^--
^Sources^{: H.Rept. 105-206; S.Rept. 105-45; H.Rept. 105-265.}
^*Notes^{: Sealift amount includes operating as well as procurement costs.}^{Totals do not include initial spares or military construction,}
^{except for the BMD amount, which incl}^{udes military construction in the R&D total. Conference amounts do not reflect across-the-}
^{board reductions of 1.5% in procurement and R&D and of an additional $474 million in R&D.}

Table A8: Line-Item Vetoes in the FY1998 Defense Appropriations Act
(amounts in thousands of dollars)
Congressional
Item Account State/District Amount
SR-71 Aircraft OperationOperation & Maintenance, A.F.CA-2130,000
SR-71 Aircraft ModificationsAircraft Procurement, A.F.CA-259,000
Gallo CenterRDT&E, ArmyNJ-114,000
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells TechnologyRDT&E, ArmyUnknown6,000
Periscopic Minimally-Invasive SurgeryRDT&E, ArmyUnknown3,000
Proton BeamRDT&E, ArmyCA-404,000
Terfenol-DRDT&E, NavyPA-123,000
COTS Air Gun as Acoustic SourceRDT&E, NavyUnknown3,000
Military SpaceplaneRDT&E, A.F.NM-110,000
Clementine (Asteroid Interception)RDT&E, A.F.NM-130,000
Optical Correlator TechnologyRDT&E, A.F.Unknown1,500
Anti-Satellite WeaponRDT&E, Defense-wideCA-23 and/or -2437,500
Risk-Based Toxic Chemicals ResearchRDT&E, Defense-wideUnknown2,000
Defense Techlink Rural Technology TransferRDT&E, Defense-wideID, MT, ND, SD, WY1,000
Total144,000
Source: "The Cancellation of the Dollar Amounts of Discretionary Budget Authority Contained in the Defense
Appropriations Act of 1998, Pursuant to Pub. L. 104-130," House Document 105-155, Oct. 6, 1997.

For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 93056. Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman.
CRS Issue Brief 96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues, by
Valerie Grasso.
CRS Issue Brief 87111. F-22 Aircraft Program, by Bert Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 92035. F/A-18E/F Aircraft Program, by Bert Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 93103. Military Medical Care Services: Questions and Answers,
by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS Issue Brief 85159. Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues, by Robert
L. Goldich.
CRS Issue Brief 95076. NATO: Congress Addresses Expansion of the Alliance, by
Paul Gallis.
CRS Issue Brief 91098. Navy Attack Submarine Programs: Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Issue Brief 94040. Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement, by Nina
Serafino.
CRS Issue Brief 92115. Tactical Aircraft Modernization Issues for Congress, by
Bert Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 86103. V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft, by Bert Cooper.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 97-294. Defense Budget for FY1998: Data Summary, by Stephen
Daggett and Mary T. Tyszkiewicz.
CRS Report 96-729. Defense Policy: Threats, Force Structure, and Budget Issues,
by Robert L. Goldich and Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report 95-322. DOD’s Dual-Use Strategy, by John D. Moteff.
CRS Report 96-980. Joint Strike Fighter: Background, Status, and Issues, by Bert
H. Cooper.
CRS Report 97-42. Key Foreign and Defense Policy Issues in the 105 Congress,^th
coordinated by Amy F. Woolf.

CRS Report 97-720. Navy Aircraft Carrier Procurement: CVN-77 "Smart Buy"
Proposal, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report 97-700. Navy/DARPA Arsenal Ship Program: Issues and Options for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report 97-803. Navy Major Shipbuilding Programs in the FY1998 Defense
Authorization and Appropriation Conferences, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Other Resources
Congressional Budget Office, “Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budgetary
Proposals for Fiscal Year 1998,” March 3, 1997.
Congressional Budget Office, A Look at Tomorrow’s Tactical Air Forces, by Lane
Pierrot and Jo Ann Vines, January 1997.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Health Care: New Managed Care Plan
Progressing, but Cost and Performance Issues Remain, Report No.
HEHS-96-128, June 14, 1996 (20 pages).
U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Combat Air Power: Reassessing Plans to
Modernize Interdiction Capabilities Could Save Billions, Report No.
NSIAD-96-72, May 13, 1996 (60 pages).
U.S. General Accounting Office, Navy Aviation: F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal
Operational Improvement at High Cost Chapter in Report No.
NSIAD-96-98), June 18, 1996.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Tactical Aircraft: F-15 Replacement Is Premature
as Currently Planned, Letter Report No. NSIAD-94-118, March 25, 1994.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Information regarding the defense budget, defense programs, and congressional action
on defense policy is available at the following web or gopher sites.
Congressional Sites/OMB
House Committee on Appropriations
http://www.house.gov/appropriations
Senate Committee on Appropriations
http://www.senate.gov/committee/appropriations.html
House National Security Committee
http://www.house.gov/nsc/welcome.htm

CRS Appropriations Products Guide
http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html
Congressional Budget Office
http://gopher.cbo.gov:7100/
General Accounting Office
http://www.gao.gov
Office of Management & Budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1998
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/budget/index.html
Defense Department and Related Sites
Defense LINK
http://www.dtic.dla.mil/defenselink/
Defense Issues (Indexed major speeches)
http://www.dtic.mil:80/defenselink/pubs/di_index.html
BosniaLINK
http://www.dtic.dla.mil/bosnia/index.html
Army Link — The U.S. Army Home Page
http://www.army.mil/
Army Comptroller Home Page
http://www.asafm.army.mil/
Army Chief of Staff Presentations
http://www.hqda.army.mil/ocsa/present.htm
Navy Public Affairs Library
http://www.navy.mil/navpalib/.www/subject.html
Navy On-Line Home Page
http://www.navy.mil/index-real.html
United States Marine Corps Home Page
http://www.usmc.mil/
AirForceLINK
http://www.dtic.mil:80/airforcelink/
Air Force Financial Management Home Page
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/SAFFM/graphics.html