APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY1999: DEFENSE
CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY1999: Defense
Updated December 18, 1998
Stephen Daggett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
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 took effect for the first time in 1997.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
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.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
Appropriations for FY1999: Defense
Summary
Congress completed action on FY1999 defense authorization and appropriations
bills on October 1. The House approved the conference report on the defense
authorization bill (H.R. 3616) on September 24 and the Senate on October 1. The
President signed the bill into law (P.L. 105-261) on October 17. The House approved
the conference report on the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4103) on September
105-262) on October 17, as well. Later Congress approved additional funding for
defense programs in the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277), which the House
approved on October 20 and the Senate on October 21, and which the President
signed later that day.
The authorization conference agreement resolved a number of contentious
issues, include restrictions on technology transfers to China in the House bill; gender-
integrated basic training, which the House wanted to restrict, while the Senate
supported the current system; restrictions on base consolidation included in the Senate
bill; options for producing tritium for nuclear weapons; and a few major weapons
issues, including funding for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system and Senate provisions requiring more testing of the F-22 fighter.
The appropriations conference decided to leave a key issue — funding for
Bosnia — for action in later legislation. The Senate-passed appropriations bill
included $1.9 billion in emergency funding for Bosnia, as the Administration had
requested, but the House bill did not. Funding for Bosnia was subsequently provided
in a supplemental appropriations measure approved as part of the Omnibus
Appropriations bill. The supplemental measure also included funding for Year 2000
(Y2K) fixes in the Defense Department, for military readiness, for drug interdiction,
for missile defense, and for counter-terrorism activities.
Other key issues that Congress addressed this year include base closures, Bosnia
policy, and congressional war powers. In action on the defense authorization bill,
neither the House nor the Senate agreed to an Administration request to approve a
new round of military base closures, so the issue has been put off for renewed debate
next year. Both the House and the Senate also debated the U.S. mission in Bosnia.
Neither House approved any binding restrictions on the mission, though the
authorization conference agreement includes a sense of the Congress statement urging
the President to reduce troops levels. The House-passed appropriations bill included
a war powers-related provision that would prohibit the expenditure of funds for
offensive military actions without advance congressional approval, while the Senate
rejected the same language. The Administration threatened a veto if that provision
was not removed in conference, and the conference agreement did not to include the
measure.
Area of Expertise Name CRS DivisionTelephone
Acquisition; IndustryValerie GrassoFAND7-7617
Arms SalesRichard GrimmettFAND7-7675
Base Closure; AcquisitionDavid LockwoodFAND7-7621
BombersDagnija Sterste-PerkinsFAND7-7631
Defense BudgetStephen DaggettFAND7-7642
Defense BudgetMary TyszkiewiczFAND7-3144
Defense R&DMichael DaveySTM7-7074
Defense R&DRichard NunnoSTM7-7037
Defense R&DJohn MoteffSTM7-1435
Ground ForcesEdward BrunerFAND7-2775
Ground ForcesSteven BowmanFAND7-7613
IntelligenceRichard BestFAND7-7607
Military ConstructionMary TyszkiewiczFAND7-3144
Military PersonnelDavid BurrelliFAND7-8033
Missile DefenseRobert ShueyFAND7-7677
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 .......................................................... 1
Status .............................................................. 2
Key Budget and Policy Issues............................................4
Major Issues in House and Senate Action on FY1999 Defense Authorization and
Appropriations Bills............................................4
Defense Policy Issues...............................................7
The effect of budget constraints on the defense debate..................7
The Quadrennial Defense Review..................................8
Additional military base closures..................................9
Bosnia funding and troop levels..................................10
Relations with China and controls on technology exports to China and other
nations ................................................. 11
Other efficiency measures.......................................12
Military readiness.............................................13
Long-term funding for defense modernization.......................14
Military personnel end-strength levels..............................14
National Guard and reserve issues................................15
Major weapons programs.......................................16
Sexual harassment, gender-integrated training, and other social issues.....20
Defense health care...........................................21
Medical research and development earmarks........................22
Year 2000 computer problems...................................22
Tritium production............................................22
Legislation .......................................................... 23
Appendix A: Summary Tables..........................................25
Appendix B: Relationships Between the
National Defense Budget Function and
Defense-Related Appropriations Bills..................................33
Appendix C: Defense Budget Trends.....................................34
For Additional Reading................................................35
CRS Issue Briefs.................................................35
CRS Reports....................................................36
Other Resources.................................................37
Selected World Wide Web Sites......................................38
Table 1. Status of FY1999 Defense Appropriations...........................3
Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1995 to FY1999.......................25
Table A2: Administration Defense Plan, February 1998.......................25
Table A3: Ballistic Missile Defense Funding, FY1999.........................26
Table A4: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs:
FY1999 Authorization.............................................27
Table A5: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs:
FY1999 Appropriations............................................28
Table A6: Defense-Related Supplemental Appropriations in
FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 4328).......................29
Table A7: Congressional Action on
FY1999 Defense Authorization Bill by Title.............................30
Table A8: Congressional Action on FY1999
Defense Appropriations Bill by Title..................................31
Table A9: Final Congressional Action on National Defense (050)
Authorization and Appropriations by Appropriations Bill and Title*...........32
Table B1: FY1999 National Defense Appropriations Request and Current 302(b) Allocations
by Appropriations Subcommittee.....................................33
Table C1. Administration National Defense Budget Projections..................34
Table C2: Congressional Additions to Administration
National Defense Budget Requests, FY1996-98..........................35
Appropriations for FY1999: Defense
Most Recent Developments
The House approved a conference agreement on the FY1999 defense appropriations
bill (H.R. 4103) by a vote of 369-4 on September 28, and the Senate approved the agreement
by a vote of 94-2 on September 29. The House approved a conference agreement on the
FY1999 defense authorization bill (H.R. 3616) by a vote of 373-50 on September 24, and the
Senate approved the agreement by a vote of 96-2 on October 1. The President signed both
bills into law on October 17 (the authorization is P.L. 105-261 and the appropriations is
P.L. 105-262). On October 20, the House, and, on October 21, the Senate, approved an
omnibus appropriations bill for FY1999 (H.R. 4328) that provides additional defense-related
funding of $8.3 billion, including $1.9 billion for Bosnia operations, $1.3 billion for military
readiness, $1.5 billion for intelligence, $1 billion for missile defense, $1.1 billion for year
2000 fixes in the Defense Department, $469 million for storm damage repairs, $525 million
to purchase fissile materials from Russia (a defense-related program of the Department of
Energy), $529 million for antiterrorism activities, and $42 million for defense counter-drug
activities. The President signed the bill into law (P.L. 105-277) on October 21.
Background
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, (2) classified amounts for national foreign intelligence activities
administered by the CIA and by other agencies as well as by DOD, and (3) very small
amounts for some other agencies. Five other appropriations bills also provide funds for
national defense activities of DOD and other agencies — see Appendix B for an overview.
The Administration’s FY1999 budget included $270.6 billion for the national defense budget
function, of which $250.8 billion was requested in the defense appropriations bill.
Along with annual defense-related appropriations, Congress also acts every year on a
national defense authorization bill. 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. 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 tracks
congressional action on both measures.
Status
Congress completed action on the annual defense authorization and appropriations bills
on October 1. The final status of action on these bills and on related legislation is as follows:
!House and Senate 302(b) allocations: On May 14, the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved its initial allocation of funds to each of its 13 subcommittees, and
on May 22, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston announced
his proposed initial 302(b) allocations — the full committee approved the initial
allocations on June 16. These allocations, which are revised over the course of the
year, ultimately determine how much money will be available for defense and other
programs under the jurisdiction of the appropriations committees. The final Senate
allocations to the defense subcommittee are $250.290 billion in budget authority and
$244.942 billion in outlays. These amounts are slightly below what the Administration
had requested, while allocations to the military construction subcommittee are
somewhat above the request. The final House allocations provide $250.499 billion in
budget authority and $244.965 billion in outlays for the national security
subcommittee. See Table B-1 in Appendix B, below, for allocations of all defense
discretionary funds. See CRS Report 96-912, Brief Introduction to the Federal
Budget Process, by Robert Keith, for a discussion of the role of 302(b) allocations in
the budget process.
!FY1999 House defense authorization bill: On May 6, the House National Security
Committee finished marking up its version of the FY1999 defense authorization bill,
H.R. 3616, and the House approved the bill, with amendments, on May 21.
!FY1999 Senate defense authorization bill: On May 7, the Senate Armed Services
Committee completed marking up its version of the FY1999 defense authorization bill,
S. 2057. Floor action began on May 13-15 and resumed on June 19, and the Senate
passed the bill on June 25.
!FY1999 defense authorization conference agreement: Conferees reached agreement
on the authorization bill on September 17. The House approved the conference report
on September 24 and the Senate on October 1. The President signed the bill into law
(P.L. 105-261) on October 17.
!FY1999 House national security appropriations bill: On June 3-4, the House
National Security Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY1999
defense appropriations bill, and the full committee completed its markup and ordered
the bill, H.R. 4103, to be reported on June 17. The House passed the bill on June 24.
!FY1999 Senate defense appropriations bill: On June 2, the Senate Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY1999 defense
appropriations bill, and the full committee completed its markup and ordered the bill,
S. 2132, to be reported on June 4. The full Senate considered the bill, substituted its
text into the text of H.R. 4103, and passed H.R. 4103, as amended, on July 30.
!FY1999 defense appropriations conference report: Conferees announced
agreement on the FY1999 defense appropriations bill on September 22. The House
approved the conference report on September 28, and the Senate on September 29.
The President signed the bill into law (P.L. 105-262) on October 17.
!FY1999 congressional budget resolution: On April 2, the Senate approved
S.Con.Res. 86, its version of the annual congressional budget resolution, which sets
targets for budget authority and outlays for the overall national defense budget
function. The House approved its version, H.Con.Res. 284, on June 5. A conference
agreement on the resolution was never completed.
!Supplemental defense appropriations for FY1998: On April 30, the House and the
Senate approved a conference agreement on H.R. 3579, which provides supplemental
funding for military operations in Bosnia and Southwest Asia (i.e., the Persian Gulf),
for domestic and defense disaster relief, and for other purposes. The President signed
the bill into law (P.L. 105-174) on May 1. The bill offsets the supplemental funding
for domestic programs with rescissions, but it does not offset the defense amounts.
In all, the bill provides $2.7 billion for the Defense Department, including $481 million
for Bosnia, $1.3 billion for Southwest Asia, $393 million defense for disaster relief,
and $513 million for other defense programs. (For a full review of supplemental
funding and rescissions, see Larry Nowels, Coordinator, Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescissions for FY1998, CRS Report 98-123).
!Defense-related supplemental appropriations for FY1999: On October 20, the
House, and, on October 21, the Senate, approved an omnibus appropriations bill for
FY1999 (H.R. 4328) that provides additional defense-related funding of $8.3 billion,
including $1.9 billion for Bosnia operations, $1.3 billion for military readiness, $1.5
billion for intelligence, $1 billion for missile defense, $1.1 billion for year 2000 fixes
in the Defense Department, $469 million for storm damage repairs, $200 million for
the defense health program, $525 million to purchase fissile materials from Russia (a
defense-related program of the Department of Energy), $529 million for defense
antiterrorism activities, and $42 million for defense counter-drug activities. All of
these funds are designated as emergency appropriations (see below for a discussion).
The bill also makes rescissions of $67 million. (For a full discussion of defense and
other supplemental appropriations see Larry Nowels, Coordinator, Supplemental
Appropriations: Emergency Agriculture Aid, Embassy Security, Y2K Computer
Conversion, and Defense, CRS Issue Brief 98044.)
Table 1. Status of FY1999 Defense Appropriations
SubcommitteeConference Report
MarkupApprovalHouseHouseSenateSenateConferencePublic Law
Report Passage Report Passage Report
House Senate House Senate
H.Rept. S.Rept. H.Rept. 10/17/986/24/98 7/30/98 9/28/98 9/29/98
6/3-4/986/2/98105-591,105-200,105-746,P.L. 105-(358-61)(97-2)(369-43)(94-2)
6/17/98 6/4/98 9/23/98 262
Key Budget and Policy Issues
Major Issues in House and Senate Action on FY1999 Defense
Authorization and Appropriations Bills
The conference agreements on the defense authorization and appropriations bills
resolved a number of major issues, including:
!Relations with China: The House approved several floor amendments to the
authorization bill to limit satellite and missile technology exports to China.
The White House objected to several of the provisions, especially to a ban on
satellite exports. China was also a contentious issue in Senate debate on the
authorization bill. The Senate-passed bill included several statements of policy,
but some especially contentious China-related amendments offered by Senator
Hutchinson were dropped during floor debate. China-related provisions were
a major issue in the authorization conference. The conference agreed to drop
language banning the export of satellites to China but included provisions that
would (1) take review of technology exports to China away from the
Commerce Department and return it to the State Department, (2) require
advanced congressional notification of satellite sales to China along with a
presidential justification for waiving human rights-related limits on satellite
transfers, and (3) prohibit export of missile equipment or technology to China
unless the President certifies that the export will not hurt the U.S. space launch
industry and will not improve China's missile launch capabilities.. The
conference agreement also includes a House-passed measure that would
prohibit the transfer of port facilities near San Diego to COSCO, a Chinese
shipping company. The Senate-passed version of the defense appropriations
bill included a revised amendment by Senator Hutchinson condemning forced
abortions in China and requiring that foreign officials (from China or other
nations) involved in forced abortions, forced sterilization, or genital mutilation
be denied visas to the United States. The appropriations conference agreement
does not include this measure, but it contains a prohibition on DOD doing
business with Chinese Army-owned companies and requires a report on the
security situation in the Taiwan Strait.
!Base closures: Neither the House nor the Senate authorization bills approved
new rounds of military base closures, as the Administration had requested.
The Senate approved an amendment by Senators Inhofe and Dorgan that
would make it somewhat more difficult for the Defense Department to realign
military bases in the absence of a congressionally established base closure
process. DOD strongly objected to this provision. The conference agreement
drops this provision — according to press accounts, Sen. Inhofe agreed to
drop it in return for conference acceptance of the House-passed provision
regarding COSCO.
!Social issues: The House-passed authorization bill required the Army, Navy,
and Air Force to separate men and women in basic training as the Marine
Corps now does. The Senate-passed bill, in stark contrast, specifically
prohibited implementation of new policies to separate men and women in basic
training until after a congressionally established commission reports. In a key
floor vote on June 24, the Senate rejected a Brownback amendment to
incorporate the House language — instead the Senate endorsed a substitute
offered by Senator Snowe that allows current integrated training practices to
continue, though it would require additional steps to separate male and female
sleeping quarters. This was reportedly a major issue in the House-Senate
authorization conference. The conference ultimately adopted the Senate
language but also included a "sense of the House" statement urging separate
training units. On other social issues, the House authorization included a
measure applying to the Secretary of Defense and the President a requirement
that commanders display "exemplary behavior," and the conference agreement
includes a similar provision, but only as a "sense of the House" statement.
Both the House and the Senate rejected floor amendments to eliminate the
current ban on abortions in military medical facilities.
!Tritium production: The House-passed authorization bill included a measure
that would prohibit the Defense of Energy (DOE) from buying tritium for
nuclear weapons from commercial nuclear reactors. Without this source of
tritium, DOE would have to build new facilities to produce tritium in South
Carolina. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost about
$3 billion over the next forty years to buy tritium from commercial sources and
$10 billion to buy it from new facilities. The Senate-passed authorization bill
included a provision allowing DOE to choose the long-term option. The
conference agreement allows DOE to make the choice, but prohibits
implementation of any plan for a year, which will allow Congress to review the
decision again.
!Active duty end-strength: The House-passed authorization bill rejected an
Administration request to eliminate floors on active duty end-strength levels.
The Senate version of the authorization bill and both House and Senate
versions of the appropriations bill, however, all agreed to the Administration's
proposed reductions in end-strength. The authorization conference report
agrees to the Administration request.
!Pay raise: The House-passed authorization provided a pay raise of 3.6% for
military personnel, while the Senate version and both House and Senate
versions of the appropriations bill initially provided only the requested raise of
3.1%. On June 25, however, the Senate approved an amendment to the
authorization bill by Senators Thurmond and Levin to increase the pay raise to
3.6%, offset by an across-the-board reduction of R&D funds. Senators
Stevens and Inouye, among others, cosponsored the amendment, and they
subsequently offered an amendment to provide the same pay raise on the
defense appropriations bill. The authorization and appropriations conference
agreements provide a 3.6% raise.
!Bosnia: The Administration requested $1.9 billion for Bosnia in FY1999 as
emergency funding not subject to the $270.5 billion cap on defense spending
under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The Senate-passed version of the
defense appropriations bill included the requested funding, while the House bill
did not. In addition, the SASC report on the authorization bill approved that
amount and explicitly stipulated that the funding should be provided as
emergency appropriations. The House-passed authorization bill did not
address emergency funding, but instead included a provision to cap Bosnia
spending at $1.9 billion, with the services allowed to spend $100 million more,
if necessary to protect U.S. troops — the Administration strongly objected to
this provision. In floor action on the authorization, both houses considered
and rejected measures to require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Bosnia
by a specific date, but the Senate version of the authorization bill also included
a sense of the Congress statement encouraging the President to establish
conditions allowing a drawdown of forces in Bosnia. The authorization
conference agreement specifically authorizes $1.9 billion in emergency funding
for Bosnia and allows larger expenditures if the President certifies that the
funding is needed to meet U.S. national security needs and will not undermine
readiness. The appropriations conference agreement did not include
emergency funding for Bosnia, but it was later provided in a supplemental
appropriations measure included in the FY1999 omnibus appropriations bill.
!Weapons priorities: Compared to past years, contentious weapons issues were
few — but there were some. The Administration requested just one C-130J
aircraft and objected to the addition of more than $400 million for 7 additional
aircraft in the House authorization and appropriations bills — the Senate bills
added smaller amounts. The authorization and appropriations conference
agreements provide funds for 7 aircraft, 6 more than requested. The House and
Senate appropriations bills reduced funding for the Theater High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) system by substantial amounts in the wake of the most
recent test failure in May. Although the Administration agreed that the
program should be restructured, it wanted to maintain funding. The
authorization conference agreement, however, cuts $294 million and the
appropriations conference agreement cuts $376 million. The Senate
authorization and appropriations bills reduced or eliminated funding for
another Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system, the Medium Extended-Range
Air Defense System (MEADS), a cooperative program with allies that the
Administration wants to continue. The authorization conference agreement
cuts funding from $44 million requested to $24 million and prohibits
expenditure of any funds unless the Defense Department finds room for
MEADS in future budget plans. The appropriations conference agreement
provides just $10 million. The Senate authorization and appropriations bills
also reduced funding for the Airborne Laser (ABL) program and increased
funding for Space-Based Laser (SBL) R&D. The Administration strongly
objected, but the authorization conference agreement follows the Senate. The
appropriations conference agreement provides somewhat more than the
authorization for ABL. Both House and Senate appropriations bills also
reduced funding for new aircraft carrier development in the wake of the Navy's
decision not to pursue a "clean sheet" design for a new "CVX" carrier. The
Navy wanted to keep some of the money to develop progressive changes in the
current design. The authorization conference agreement provides $110 million
and the appropriations conference agreement provides $105 million of the
$190 million requested. The Senate authorization and appropriations bills
included advance procurement funds for a new LHD-8 amphibious ship — the
Defense Department did not object, though some lawmakers denounced it as
an example of pork barrel politics. The authorization conference agreement
provides $50 million and the appropriations agreement $45 million. The
House and Senate differed on the number of new F/A-18E/F aircraft to
procure, and the House added funds for two unrequested F-16 aircraft. The
authorization and appropriations conferences funded 30 F-18s, as requested,
and one F-16. The Administration objected to a requirement in the Senate
authorization bill that the F-22 aircraft complete certain testing before
additional procurement contracts are signed. The authorization conference
includes the restrictions but allows them to be waived. The Administration
objected as well to some cuts in other areas that the House, especially,
imposed to finance increases in certain programs, including Department of
Energy weapons programs. The authorization conference agreement makes
somewhat smaller cuts in these programs. Some long-term weapons issues
appear to have been resolved this year — the battle over B-2 bomber
procurement now appears over and the House National Security Committee
did not renew its long fight to require a design competition in the New Attack
Submarine (NSSN) program. See Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5 below for action
on major weapons programs.
!Military health care: The House and Senate authorization bills both took steps
to ensure that military retirees continue to have access to the defense health
care system. The Senate bill approved three pilot projects to test alternative
approaches, and the House approved a floor amendment to establish a test of
a plan to allow military retirees to join the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Plan (FEHBP). The authorization conference includes pilot projects to test
FEHBP, using the DOD TRICARE program as a supplement for Medicare,
and giving retirees access to TRICARE pharmacy benefits.
Each of these issues, and background on other matters, is discussed below in more
detail.
Defense Policy Issues
Budget constraints, the results of last year's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
and its companion reports, ongoing battles over some social issues, and several other
matters, all combined to create a broad agenda in this year’s defense debate. Key
matters of discussion included (1) military base closures; (2) Bosnia funding; (3)
controls on technology exports to China and some other nations; (4) other efficiency
measures; (5) military readiness; (6) long-term funding for defense modernization; (7)
military personnel levels; (8) National Guard and Reserve funding and the role of
Army National Guard combat units; (9) major weapons programs, including ballistic
missile defense, the B-2 bomber, fighter aircraft, and shipbuilding; (10) a number of
social issues, including sexual harassment and gender-integrated training, and
(11) other matters, including military health care policy and Year 2000 computer
problems. The following sections briefly review each of these issues.
The effect of budget constraints on the defense debate. In considering the
FY1999 defense budget, the congressional defense committees were constrained by
the 1997 budget agreement. Since the Administration request for FY1999 was right
at the agreed level of defense spending of $270.5 billion in new budget authority, the
defense debate in Congress initially amounted to a “zero-sum game” — any amounts
that Congress added for programs it favored, and any proposed Administration
reductions that it rejected, would have to be offset by reductions in other defense
programs. This represents a sharp break with the experience of the past three years,
in which Congress has added substantial amounts to annual Administration defense
budget requests (for details, see Table C2 in Appendix C). In the end, Congress
provided an additional $8.3 billion for defense programs as part of the omnibus
appropriations bill, but this was not considered until the very end of the process.
The budget constraints could have led to a confrontation between Congress and
the Administration over defense priorities, in which Congress would add money for
programs it felt the Administration had neglected and pay for the additions by cutting
some high priority Administration programs. For their part, senior Administration
officials said that they tried to avoid potential conflicts by meeting Congress half way
on programs of ongoing congressional interest . Among other things, officials say,1
they fully funded national missile defense development; they requested more money
than in the past for National Guard and Reserve equipment; they made an effort to
identify and fund all defense health program costs; and they moved funding for the
next Nimitz-class aircraft carrier forward one year, to FY2001, to avoid a gap in
production.
For the most part, a contentious debate over priorities within the defense budget
did not materialize in House and Senate action FY1999 defense authorization and
appropriations bills. While the House and Senate provided some money for
unrequested weapons programs and other priorities, the amounts are relatively small.
The amounts later added for defense in the omnibus appropriations bill for the most
part did not go to contentious weapons programs, except for $1 billion added for
ballistic missile defense.
The Quadrennial Defense Review. This year’s congressional defense debate
was also affected by the outcome of last year’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
and two subsequent reports — the Defense Reform Initiative report and the report of
the National Defense Panel. The QDR, released on May 19, 1997, was a
thoroughgoing reassessment of U.S. defense policy by the Department of Defense.
The Defense Reform Initiative report, issued on November 10, 1997, identified a
number of efficiency measures. The National Defense Panel report, released on
December 1, 1997, reviewed the QDR and focused on potential defense requirements
in the 2010-2020 period. Each of these reports highlighted themes that will be
important ongoing matters of discussion in Congress.
Among other things, the QDR proposed a revised, very broad statement of U.S.
defense strategy; reaffirmed the requirement that U.S. forces be able to prevail in two
nearly simultaneous major theater wars; proposed measures to reduce pressures on
the force created by the relatively large number of smaller-scale contingency
operations in the post-Cold War era; and identified key elements of the so-called
“revolution in military affairs” (RMA). The QDR and the Defense Reform Initiative
This point is based on a briefing for congressional staff by Under Secretary of Defense1
(Comptroller) William J. Lynn III.
emphasized the need for increased efficiency in order to save money for weapons
modernization, and both strongly endorsed two more rounds of military base closures.
The National Defense Panel report endorsed much of the QDR, including its focus on
shaping the international security environment and on efficiency measures. But the
Panel also called for a greater emphasis on homeland defense and on preparations for
potentially very different kinds of threats in the future. The Panel argued that less
emphasis should be placed on preparing to fight two major theater wars and more on
preparing for the future, and it called for $5 to $10 billion more to be spent each year
on experimental force exercises and new technology.
Additional military base closures. Both the Quadrennial Defense Review and
the Defense Reform Initiative report recommended two more rounds of military base
closures as a critical means of saving money to finance future defense modernization
programs. The Defense Department formally proposed two more closure rounds in
its legislative plan last year — one round in 1999 and another in 2003. Congress was
not receptive to the proposal, however, and DOD did not pursue the proposal as
vigorously as it did this year. This year, Secretary Cohen made congressional
approval of two new base closure rounds, in 2001 and 2005, into one of his top
priorities. On April 2, the Defense Department released a report on base closures that
was required by the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act. The report reaffirms earlier2
DOD estimates that previous base closure rounds, in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995,
will lead to annual savings of about $5.6 billion per year beginning in FY2000. On
this basis, the Defense Department projects that two future base closure rounds, each
as large as the earlier average, will lead to annual savings of $2.8 billion (in today’s
prices) when fully phased in. These amounts, officials argue, are crucial to pay for
weapons programs that are expected to begin production at the end of the next
decade.
Within Congress, resistance to more base closures has been hardened by
objections to Administration action following the 1995 base closure round. The 1995
Base Closure Commission recommended that two Air Force aircraft depot
maintenance facilities, in Sacramento, California, and San Antonio, Texas, be closed,3
which would have left more work for depots in Oklahoma, Georgia, and Utah. The
White House, however, instead developed a plan to “privatize in place” at the two
sites — i.e., private contractors would be allowed to bid for contracts to perform
work at the two facilities. This plan is now being implemented, and the
Administration argues that the results are positive, with competition for contracts
leading to better prices.
To many Members of Congress, however, the Administration plan politicized the
base closure process. Last year, the defense authorization bill was held up for several
months by a bitter dispute over proposals to ensure that the remaining public facilities
Department of Defense, The Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and2
Closure, April 1998.
Administration officials point out that the 1995 Base Closure Commission recommended that3
work at the California and Texas depots either be transferred to other depots or be made
subject to competition by private companies. They insist, therefore, that privatization in place
is not insistent with the Commission's recommendations.
receive adequate work. This Spring, lawmakers complained about an Air Force
memo discussing a White House request that the Defense Department encourage a
private company to bid on a contract to perform work at the Sacramento facility. In
congressional hearings, Secretary Cohen and other officials were told repeatedly that
privatization in place has eroded support for further base closures. In response,
Secretary Cohen has said that Congress can include a prohibition on privatization in
place in any future base closure legislation. Cohen has also argued that Congress
should approve more base closures now, so that the Defense Department can prepare
for them in the long-term FY2000-2005 defense plan that it is now preparing. (For
a review of base closure issues, see David Lockwood, Military Base Closures: Time
for Another Round?, CRS Report 97-674 F.)
Congressional action: Neither the House nor the Senate agreed to additional
military base closures in action on the FY1999 defense authorization. In a
critical measure of support for base closures, SASC voted down a proposal by
Senators McCain and Levin to approve one more base closure round in 2001.
On June 25, the Senate approved by 48-45 an amendment by Senator Inhofe that
would make it somewhat more difficult for DOD to realign facilities in the
absence of a congressionally established base closure process. Just a week
earlier, however, Senator Inhofe predicted that next year Congress will approve
another base closure round to occur in 2001. The Inhofe amendment was
ultimately dropped by the authorization conference.
Bosnia funding and troop levels. On March 2, the Administration sent two
separate requests to Congress for money to pay for military contingency operations
overseas. The first was a request for supplemental appropriations of about $1.8
billion in FY1998 to cover costs of extending the U.S. mission in Bosnia through the
end of the fiscal year and for costs of expanded operations in the Persian Gulf due to
the confrontation with Iraq. The second was an amendment to the FY1999 defense
budget request asking for another $1.9 billion to cover costs of extending the mission
in Bosnia through FY1999. Congress agreed to provide the FY1998 supplemental
funding in H.R. 3579 (discussed above). The FY1999 request for Bosnia was initially
considered in the course of congressional action on the regular FY1999 funding bills,
and funding was ultimately provided in the onmibust appropriations bill (H.R. 4328).
The Administration requested that the additional FY1998 and FY1999 funding
for Bosnia be designated as “emergency” appropriations under the terms of the budget
enforcement act. This would raise caps on defense discretionary spending and on
total discretionary spending by the amount provided, so the costs would not have to
be offset by cuts in other defense programs. This proposal was contentious. For the
past three years, Congress had insisted that anticipated costs of ongoing military
operations in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere be provided as part of regular
defense appropriations measures within caps on defense spending established in the
annual budget process — the FY1998 and FY1999 supplemental funding has broken
this precedent. The Administration argued that Bosnia costs were not assumed in
defense plans at the time the 1997 budget agreement was reached. If Congress did
not agree to designate the Bosnia funding as emergency appropriations and Bosnia
operations continue, then the costs would have to be offset by cuts in other defense
programs.
Congressional action: In its version of the defense authorization bill, SASC
approved $1.9 billion for Bosnia in FY1999 as an addition to the regular $270.5
billion funding for national defense and explicitly said that the funding should be
provided as emergency appropriations, as the Administration requested. In its
version of the authorization, HNSC did not specifically address emergency
funding for Bosnia, but instead established a cap of $1.9 billion on the amount
that may be expended for Bosnia in FY1999, with an additional $100 million
available in case of emergency, to protect U.S. troops. On May 21, the full
House rejected a motion by Representative Barney Frank to recommit the
authorization bill to committee with instructions to report a revised bill that
would cut off funds for operations in Bosnia after Dec. 31, 1998 without prior
congressional approval. The House-passed defense appropriations bill also did
not include emergency funding for Bosnia. On June 24, the Senate approved an
amendment to the authorization bill by Senator Thurmond urging the President
to reduce the U.S. troop level in Bosnia, but, in a key test of policy, it rejected
an amendment by Senator Bob Smith to cut off funds unless Congress approves
the deployment. Senators Byrd and Hutchison did not offer their amendment to
require that the U.S. troop presence in Bosnia be drawn down to the average
level maintained by major allies. On July 30, the Senate added an amendment
proposed by Senator Stevens to the defense appropriations bill to provide the
requested $1.9 billion as emergency appropriations. On the broader issue of
congressional war powers, the House-passed appropriations bill included a
provision proposed by Representative Skaggs to prohibit expenditures on
offensive military action without advance congressional approval. The Senate,
however, voted by 84-15 to table an identical amendment to the appropriations
bill offered by Senator Durbin. The White House threatened a veto if the Skaggs
provision were included in the appropriations bill. The authorization conference
agreement approves $1.9 billion in emergency funding for Bosnia — but it must
still be appropriated. The conference agreement also allows expenditure of more
than that provided the President certifies that the funding is needed for national
security and will not reduce readiness. The appropriations conference agreement
does not include emergency funding for Bosnia, leaving the issue for later
consideration. The Skaggs amendment was dropped in the appropriations
conference agreement. Requested emergency funding of $1.9 billion for Bosnia
was provided in the FY1999 Omnibus appropriations bill.
Relations with China and controls on technology exports to China and
other nations. Policy toward China became a major focus of congressional attention
in the wake of allegations that the Loral Space Corporation provided assistance to
China in improving its missile launch technology and on the eave of the President's
trip to China. Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan also focused attention on trade
sanctions legislation and other export controls.
Congressional action: The House approved several amendments to the defense
authorization bill to restrict technology exports to China and other countries.
One amendment limited export of missile and satellite technology and provision
of technical assistance to China; another subjected satellite exports to the same
licensing requirements as munitions; another transferred responsibility for
reviewing technology exports to China from the Commerce Department to the
State Department; and another allowed Congress to review nuclear technology
exports through the same procedures as weapons exports. The White House
strongly objected to these measures. The House-passed bill also included a
provision to prohibit the transfer of facilities at Long Beach naval shipyard, near
San Diego, to a Chinese shipping company, COSCO. A number of amendments
concerning technology exports to China, relations with China, and trade
sanctions were proposed in Senate action on the defense authorization bill. On
June 23, the Senate rejected a motion to table four China-related amendments
by Senator Hutchinson, and debate on China policy was then put off. Senator
Hutchinson then said that he planned to offer his amendments when the Senate
took up the defense appropriations bill. Senator Stevens, however, delayed floor
action on the bill, reportedly in part because he was concerned that contentious
amendments on China or other issues could derail the bill. Ultimately the Senate
considered a number of China-related issues in action on other bills, and Senator
Hutchinson offered a single, revised amendment on the defense appropriations
bill. This measure required the State Department to deny visas to foreign
officials involved in forced abortions, forced sterilization, or genital mutilation,
and it passed unanimously. The authorization conference agreement drops
House language banning the export of satellites to China but includes provisions
that would (1) take review of technology exports to China away from the
Commerce Department and return it to the State Department, (2) require
advanced congressional notification of satellite sales to China along with a
presidential justification for waiving human rights-related limits on satellite
transfers, and (3) prohibit export of missile equipment or technology to China
unless the President certifies that the export will not hurt the U.S. space launch
industry and will not improve China's missile launch capabilities.. The
conference agreement also includes the House-passed ban on transferring port
facilities COSCO. For a review of China policy issues, see CRS Issue Brief
Other efficiency measures. Along with additional base closures, both the QDR
and the Defense Reform Initiative report recommended a number of other efficiency
measures. The most important measures include (1) a one-third reduction over the
next few years in the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and
substantial cuts in military service headquarters staffs; (2) cuts in civilian and military
personnel carrying out support functions; and (3) aggressive pursuit of public-private
competitions for additional activities now carried out by civilian DOD employees. In
the past, Congress has, on the one had, pressured the Defense Department to reduce
the number of people engaged in “overhead” activities and, on the other hand,
imposed some barriers to reductions in civilian personnel levels. Issues this year
included, first, whether the DOD cuts in OSD and headquarters personnel amount to
real or only paper reductions; second, whether Congress will require different or
deeper cuts in overhead personnel; and, third, how Congress will react to privatization
measures at local facilities. Over the past couple of years, the House, in particular,
has sought to impose deep cuts in the number of personnel engaged in “acquisition”
activities. The Senate and the Administration sought to soften House-proposed
measures, in part on the grounds that acquisition personnel have been defined too
broadly. At the same time, the House has resisted proposals to open weapons
maintenance and other activities to private competition.
Congressional action: In report language, HNSC urged the Defense Department
not to waive cuts in acquisition personnel that were mandated in last year's
defense authorization act and criticized DOD for not complying with a reporting
requirement on management headquarters personnel. HNSC also imposed an
across-the-board cut of $500 million in funding for consultants and cited this
reduction as a reform measure. The White House objected to the cut in
consulting funds and to several measures in the House-passed authorization bill,
saying they would restrict DOD's ability to pursue efficiencies. The
authorization conference agreement includes (1) a measure to withhold 10
percent of funds for the Office of the Secretary of Defense unless DOD meets
all statutory requirements to cut headquarters staffs and provides mandated
reports to Congress, (2) cuts 25,000 acquisition personnel, (3) cuts $240 million
for consultants, and (4) reduces the number of Assistant Secretary of Defense
positions from 10 to 9.
Military readiness. Military readiness has been a focus of intense attention in
congressional hearings throughout the year. Many Members of Congress have cited
repeated reports about readiness-related problems ranging from a shortage of Air
Force fighter aircraft spare engines; to a drop in Army standards for new recruits; to
shortfalls in Army personnel in key skill areas, including combat infantry; to a drastic
decline in pilot retention rates in the Air Force and the Navy. These are symptoms,
some conclude, of an imminent readiness crisis, brought about, first, by inadequate
funding for defense, and, second, by the Clinton Administration’s willingness to
commit U.S. forces to more missions abroad than the force can reasonably support.
In response, Administration officials acknowledged some problems, but they
insisted that there is no overall crisis in readiness now or in the foreseeable future.
Early deploying units, they say, remain fully ready, though some later deploying units
may take longer than in the past to prepare. Evidence of problems, they say, is largely
based on anecdotes that do not accurately portray the state of the force. Overall
readiness reports, they insist, continue to show a highly qualified and capable force.
Problems that have occurred are being fixed — some Air Force engine spares, for
example, were in short supply because of mistakes in projecting failure rates, but the
planning models have now been changed. Pilot retention has been a problem, in part
because of airline hiring, and in part because of demands of operations abroad, but a
sustained effort to resolve the problem is underway — Congress approved higher
pilot reenlistment bonuses last year, and several steps are being taken to limit
deployments. Army recruiting continues to meet longstanding quality goals. Most
recently, however, officials in the services have expressed growing concerns about
personnel recruitment and retention. On September 15, the President met with senior
military officers, who reportedly identified increasingly serious readiness problems and
urged support for higher defense spending. On September 28, the Joint Chiefs
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee about the state of military
readiness and identified a need for more that $17 billion per year in additional defense
spending. Later, in response to questions of Senator McCain, the Chiefs identified
shortfalls of as much as $135 billion over five years.
Congressional action: HNSC restructured operation and maintenance funding
to provide more money for depot maintenance and real property maintenance.
It also mandated substantial changes in readiness reporting, which DOD
complains will be difficult and costly to implement. SASC also provided limited
additional amounts for readiness-related accounts. In floor action on the defense
appropriations bill, the Senate approved an amendment by Senators Domenici
and Harkin to require reports on food stamp use by military families and other
factors related to family life, morale, and retention. The Senate also adopted a
Hutchison amendment stating the sense of the Congress that readiness has been
eroded by a combination of declining budgets and expanded missions, including
the mission in Bosnia. The authorization conference agreement requires
improved readiness reporting, provides more money for recruiting and various
troop benefits, increases added pay for flight duty, and emphasizes quality of life
measures, such as day care centers and housing, in construction programs. The
FY1999 omnibus appropriations bill includes $1.3 billion for enhanced military
readiness. The bill did not, however, make changes that some had sought in
military retirement benefits as a way of bolstering personnel retention.
Long-term funding for defense modernization. The flip side of the military
readiness issue concerns the adequacy of long-term weapons modernization programs.
In recent years, the Administration has given a very high priority to readiness-related
funding. As a result, from year to year, funding that the Defense Department had
planned to spend on weapons procurement has, instead, had to be reallocated to
operation and maintenance accounts which are most closely related to readiness. In
the FY1999 budget, this problem has not been completely resolved. The requested
level of procurement funding, $48.7 billion, is very close to the level that was planned
last year — there was some decline, officials acknowledge, but only, they say, because
of adjustments in weapons programs following the Quadrennial Defense Review. But
this is true only because the Administration requested funding for FY1999 Bosnia
costs as emergency appropriations, not subject to the cap on overall defense spending.
If the budget had to absorb Bosnia costs, then procurement spending would likely
decline.
More generally, the Administration has set a goal of building up procurement
funding to $60 billion per year by FY2001. To meet this goal without an increase in
overall defense spending, however, flies in the face of historical experience in the
defense budget, as senior defense officials candidly acknowledge. The Administration
hopes to meet the target by applying base closure and other efficiency savings to the
procurement accounts. A failure to achieve planned savings, however, would put off
reaching the target, as would continued growth in weapons maintenance costs,
unplanned quality of life requirements, costs of contingency operations not funded
through emergency appropriations, health care cost growth, or any of a number of
other expenses. Recently Under Secretary of Defense Jacques Gansler said that the
$60 billion procurement target was becoming harder to reach.
Congressional action: No versions of the defense authorization and
appropriations bills include substantial increases in modernization funding. The
omnibus appropriations bill provides $1 billion for BMD programs, but no other
funds for weapons modernization.
Military personnel end-strength levels. The QDR mandated a cut of 37,000
active duty personnel and of 55,000 reserve positions through about the year 2003.
The active duty reductions, taken mainly out of support activities, are part of the
QDR’s efficiency savings. There has, however, been some vocal resistance in
Congress to proposed personnel cuts. While few object to reductions in support
activities, many argue that active duty forces are already being strained by the
requirements of contingency operations and forward presence abroad, so that further
force cuts are ill-advised. The Army, in particular, has long had shortages of
personnel in certain skills, a situation it has been willing to live with on the assumption
that units would be filled out with individual reservists in the event of a major conflict.
But in handling smaller-scale operations, this aggravates burdens on the force because
units sent to Bosnia or elsewhere are fully manned, in part, by drawing personnel from
other active duty units, increasing shortages elsewhere. For the past two years,4
Congress has set floors on active duty personnel levels. In order to carry out the
QDR reductions, Congress must agree to reduce or eliminate the statutory floors.
Some Members of Congress do not want to do so.
Congressional action: The Administration requested that active duty end-
strength be reduced by more than 35,000 from the authorized FY1998 level and
by about 24,000 from the actual FY1998 level, and that Congress repeal
statutory floors on end-strength. HNSC rejected the administration request to
repeal the statutory floors and agreed to reduce authorized end-strength by
11,000 fewer positions than the Administration wanted, arguing that troops are
being overworked. SASC approved the requested end-strength reductions and
repeal of the statutory floors. House and Senate versions of the defense
appropriations bill assumed the requested cuts in end-strength in FY1999. The
authorization conference report agrees to the Administration request.
National Guard and reserve issues. In the wake of the QDR, a simmering
dispute between the active Army and the Army National Guard (ARNG) over the role
of ARNG combat units broke into open warfare. The Guard believes that active
Army leaders have not given Guard combat units, especially eight ARNG combat
divisions, an appropriate role in war plans, and that the QDR did not adequately
consider the views of ARNG leaders. In the midst of this dispute, last year Congress
approved a measure requiring the appointment of one Guard and one Reserve officer
as special advisors to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This year, the Defense
Department has requested substantially more money than in the past for Guard and
reserve weapons procurement. Meanwhile, the Army Chief of Staff has been meeting
with ARNG leaders in an attempt to ease the ongoing dispute. Congress has
perennially added money for Guard and reserve weapons programs to the budget and
has tried to protect Guard units. (For a thorough discussion, see Robert L. Goldich,
The Army Reserve Components: Strength and Force Structure Issues, CRS Report
Congressional action: As it has in the past, Congress added substantial amounts
for equipment earmarked for National Guard and Reserve forces.
U.S. General Accounting Office, "Military Readiness: Observations on Personnel Readiness4
in Later Deploying Army Divisions," testimony of Mark E. Gebicke, Director of Military
Operations and Capabilities Issues, before the Subcommittees on Readiness and Military
Personnel, House Committee on National Security. Report No. T-NSIAD-98-126, Mar. 20,
Major weapons programs. Disputes over major weapons programs almost
always arise in Congress. This year, issues include:
!Missile defense: Missile defense programs fall into two categories: National
Missile Defense (NMD) is designed to protect the United States itself against
long-range missile attack. Theater Missile Defense (TMD) programs are
designed to protect forward deployed U.S. forces and allies from short- or
intermediate-range missile attack. Following the QDR, the Administration
increased funding for NMD programs, and the level of funding has become less
contentious than in the past. (See Table A3 for the funding request.) Major
policy disputes remain unresolved, however. The Administration is pursuing
a plan to develop NMD technology while deferring a decision to deploy a
system. It also hopes that any system eventually deployed will allow the 1972
ABM Treaty, perhaps with some amendments, to survive. Missile defense
advocates in Congress, however, believe that threats to the United States
warrant early deployment of a nationwide defense, and many believe the ABM
Treaty is anachronistic. Disputes over TMD systems, meanwhile, continue.
Key issues this year involve the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system, the Navy Theater-Wide program, and the Medium Extended Range
Air Defense System (MEADS). THAAD and Navy Theater-Wide are
relatively long-range interceptor systems. The Administration has delayed
THAAD development because of test failures, and, for affordability reasons,
wants to delay procurement of the Navy system until after THAAD
procurement is underway. MEADS is a cooperative program with European
allies to provide an improved air/missile defense system for forward deployed
troops.
Congressional Action: In the past, provisions to require deployment of a
nationwide defense have sometimes held up completion of defense
authorization and appropriations bills. As a result, for the past two years,
Congress has considered, though it has not passed, separate legislation
establishing missile defense policy. This year, the Senate Armed Services
Committee again took this approach — on April 24, it reported S. 1873
(S.Rept. 105-175), “The American Missile Protection Act of 1998,” calling
for deployment of a nationwide defense as soon as technically feasible. On
May 13 and again on September 9, however, the Senate failed to invoke
cloture on the bill. Congress has also acted on TMD programs earlier in the
year. On March 30, the House approved H.R. 2786, “The Theater Missile
Defense Improvement Act of 1998,” that authorizes $147 million in
additional funding in FY1998 for selected TMD programs; and the FY1998
supplemental funding bill, H.R. 3579, includes $179 million for TMD
programs.
The House-passed version of the FY1999 authorization included some
additional money for the Navy Area Defense program and some other
TMD systems. The SASC version of the bill provided added funding for
the Navy Theater Wide program, but reduced THAAD slightly. On
May 12, however, the THAAD program suffered its fifth successive test
failure, and on May 14, the Senate approved an amendment by Senators
Thurmond and Levin to trim another $253.9 million from the program
because engineering development will be delayed. The Senate committee
version of the defense appropriations bill reflected this measure and also
restructured the THAAD demonstration/validation program. On May 21,
the full House approved a committee amendment to restructure the
THAAD program — it required DOD to select an second contractor to
compete with Lockheed-Martin on the program and it shifts $142.7 million
from engineering development to technology development. SASC also cut
MEADS funding from $43 to $10 million and required DOD to study
alternatives — the Senate appropriations bill follows suit. Neither HNSC,
SASC, nor SAC added money for NMD. In action on a related program,
SASC was critical of the Air Force Advanced Airborne Laser (ABL)
program and cut funding by $97 million. SASC also increased funding for
Space-Based Laser R&D by $94 million (in PE# 63731C, BMD Support
Technology). The Senate appropriations bill cut $57 million from the ABL.
SAC also added $10 million to the TMD budget for boost phase intercept
technology. In part as an alternative to THAAD, the congressional defense
committees have all endorsed accelerated development of the Navy Theater
Wide TMD system — budget additions range from $70 million in the
House authorization bill to $150 million in the House defense
appropriations bill. The authorization conference cut THAAD by $294
million and reduced MEADS by $19 million to $24 million. It also
prohibits further MEADS expenditures until MEADS funding is included
in long-term defense budget plans. Finally, the agreement follows the
Senate increases in the Space Based Laser program and cuts the Airborne
Laser by $57 million. The appropriations conference agreement cuts
THAAD by $376 million, reduces MEADS to $10 million, and cuts the
Airborne Laser by $25 million. Finally, the FY1999 omnibus
appropriations bill includes additional funding of $1 billion for missile
defense, with no specific allocation of the funds indicated.
!The B-2 bomber: In recent years, some Members of Congress have proposed
procurement of 9 more B-2 bombers in addition to the 21 already financed.
With the House generally supporting more bombers and the Senate opposed,
the annual compromise has been to provide enough money to keep production
lines available and to study the issue some more. In March, an independent
commission mandated by Congress issued the latest B-2 study — it called for
no more bombers to be produced, largely because of cost.
Congressional action: None of this year's defense bills add money to
procure more B-2 bombers, which may mark the end of the B-2 battle.
HNSC added a limited amount for B-2 upgrades, while SAC cut some from
the request.
!New fighter aircraft: Three new fighter aircraft programs are in various stages
of development and production — 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. DOD has requested FY1999 funding to buy 30
F/A-18E/F aircraft, to continue to develop the F-22 and to procure the first
two aircraft, and to carry on JSF R&D. The QDR studied the three programs
and decided to continued all of them, though all were reduced. Some
Members of Congress remain of the view that DOD cannot afford to buy all
three, and that one should be canceled. There have also been differences
between the two houses on each of the programs. The cost of the F-22 has
been a major concern in the Senate, especially.
Congressional action: HNSC and HAC reduced F/A-18E/F procurement
from the 30 aircraft requested to 27, but otherwise made no changes in
major tactical aircraft programs. SASC included a requirement that the
F-22 complete 10% of planned flight tests before funding for the next
round of procurement is released — this provision reflects concern about
concurrent testing and production. But the Senate rejected a Bumpers
amendment to the authorization bill to require 601 hours of flight testing
before the next round of procurement. The Administration objected to the
Senate requirement. The authorization conference included funds for 30
F-18s, as requested, and allows a flight test requirement for the F-22 to be
waived. The appropriations conference also approved 30 F-18s.
!Shipbuilding: In recent years, Congress has added substantial amounts to
shipbuilding programs, generally by moving up planned ship purchases to avoid
costly gaps in production. Congress has also ensured that major shipyards
have enough work to cover overhead and development costs and to maintain
trained employment levels. One major issue, carried over from last year,
concerns procurement of the CVN-77, the last of the planned Nimitz-class
aircraft carriers the Navy had, until recently, planned to buy. DOD has now
moved up planned procurement of CVN-77 to the FY2001 budget — full
funding had been planned in FY2002. This is an alternative to a plan that the
carrier shipbuilder, Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), had proposed last year
to provide accelerated advanced procurement funding. NNS had argued that
its approach, called "Smart Buy," would avoid a gap in production and would,
therefore, save the Navy as much as $600 million on the price of the ship. The
new DOD plan will not save as much, but it also avoids a big bill in FY1999
and FY2000. Another longer-term issue concerns development of the next
generation DD-21 destroyer. Last year, Ingalls Shipbuilding Company of
Mississippi and Bath Iron Works of Maine agreed to team together in
developing and building the ship. The Navy initially agreed to the teaming
arrangement but then became concerned that no competing team appeared to
seek the contract. Most recently, the Navy has reached agreement with the
ship builders and with combat system integrators for Lockheed-Martin and
Bath to form one team and Raytheon and Ingalls a second to pursue
competition in combat systems and design, though both shipyards are
guaranteed eventual production work. Also, the Navy has abandoned plans to
develop an entirely new-design aircraft carrier, known as the "CVX." Instead,5
the Navy will pursue incremental improvements in the next three Nimitz-class
carriers, eventually leading to a new design.
Congressional action: HNSC, and subsequently the full House, approved
the Administration's shipbuilding program largely intact, including the
See Robert Holzer, "Navy Sinks Futuristic Carrier," Defense News, May 25-31, 1998, p. 4.5
Administration request for funding for one New Attack Submarine
(NSSN). This marks the end of an ongoing debate, in which HNSC has
tried to mandate a competition between Newport News Shipbuilding and
General Dynamics Electric Boat Division to design different versions of the
submarine. SASC and SAC also largely supported the shipbuilding request,
but added $50 million in advance procurement to buy a new LHD-7 class
amphibious ship rather than overhaul older ships for the mission. This
addition has received some attention because the ships are built by Ingalls
Shipbuilding Company in Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's home state
of Mississippi. The authorization conference agreement provides $50
million in LHD-7 advance funds and the appropriations conference provides
$45 million.
A new issue arose following reports that the Navy has decided not to
pursue development of a "clean-sheet" design for the CVX. The key issue
is how money for carrier R&D will be allocated. For its part, the Navy
wants to protect funding for CVN upgrades. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, however, recommended a $130 million reduction in funding for
CVX R&D and a $50 million increase for CVN-77 under program element
(PE) 0603512N. The committee also cut $35.7 million for CVX feasibility
studies from PE 0603564N and recommended a $5-million increase to PE
0603564N "to establish a red team [i.e., an independent study team] to
study a futuristic aircraft carrier concept." The House Appropriations bill
cut funding for the CVX by $100 million. The authorization conference
agreement provides $110 million for CVX R&D and appropriations
conference agreement provides $105 million.
!Other weapons issues: The Administration did not request funding in the
FY1999 budget to purchase additional F-16 aircraft. Congress has, in the past,
supported a continuing low level of procurement as a means of keeping
production lines going, encouraging foreign sales, and meeting Air Force
requirements for attrition aircraft. Funding for the Joint Target Attack Radar
System (JSTARS) aircraft was also be an issue. The QDR recommended
reducing the total planned procurement of JSTARS aircraft from 19 to 13 on
the assumption that NATO would agree to purchase 6 aircraft with alliance
common funds. NATO did not decide to purchase JSTARS, however, so
there was interest in Congress in restoring the earlier plan.
Congressional action: The House authorization added $66 million to
procure 2 F-16s and also added advance procurement funds for 2 additional
JSTARS aircraft. The House also added substantial amounts for National
Guard and Reserve equipment, including $300 million in a defense-wide
account and additional amounts for specific weapons programs. The
House also provided funds for 8 C-130 cargo aircraft of various types —
DOD had requested just one. The House appropriations bill provided $60
million for two F-16s, advance procurement money for JSTARS, $120
million for Guard and Reserve equipment, and $461 million for 8 C-130s.
SASC provided $72 million either for advance procurement or for
termination costs for JSTARS, pending a DOD report on its plans for the
program and alternatives. SASC also funded 4 additional C-130s and
added $60 million for Guard and Reserve procurement. SAC funded 3
additional C-130s and provided $247 million for "miscellaneous" Guard and
Reserve procurement. C-130J funding was a particularly contentious issue6
— Rep. Obey offered an amendment in the HAC markup to eliminate funds
for 4 of the 8 aircraft in the subcommittee bill and to use the savings instead
to restore F/A-18E/F procurement to the requested level and upgrade 4
existing C-130s. He complained that increases in the C-130J program were
approved because the aircraft is built in Georgia near the Speaker's district
and that they come at the expense of more valuable programs, such as the
F/A-18E/F. The authorization conference agreement provides funds for 7
C-130s, 1 F-16, advance procurement funds for JSTARS, and $60 million
for miscellaneous Guard and Reserve equipment in addition to funding in
regular line items for equipment that will be supplied to the Guard and
Reserve. The appropriations conference agreement follows suit on C-130s,
provides $36 million, not $72 million, for JSTARS advance procurement,
and provides $140 million in a separate Guard and Reserve procurement
account.
!National Defense Panel recommendations: The National Defense Panel was
critical of planned procurement of weapons that, it said, will not be able to
cope with future threats. In the Panel’s view, the Defense Department should
reduce or terminate “legacy” programs and instead pursue leap-ahead
technologies, including much lighter, more easily deployable equipment for
land forces, longer-range fighter aircraft, and ships with lower radar visibility.
The Panel specifically criticized the Army M1A2 tank upgrade, Crusader
artillery, and Comanche helicopter programs; the Navy and Air Force F/A-
18E/F and F-22 programs; and the Navy CVN-77 aircraft carrier. Some
Members of Congress have echoed questions the Panel raised about legacy
systems, but few have yet proposed specific program changes.
Congressional action: SASC approved a measure to require a Quadrennial
Defense Review at the beginning of each new administration, to be
preceded by recommendations on strategy from a National Defense Panel.
SASC also criticized the Army's Crusader artillery program and ordered a
review of the program in light of the National Defense Panel's argument.
The authorization conference agreement requires a report on Crusader.
Sexual harassment, gender-integrated training, and other social issues.
Social issues are frequently matters of debate on annual defense funding bills. This
year, the main focus of discussion has been on the outcome of sexual harassment
cases in the Army, and on the related issue of gender-integrated training in the
services. Last year, the Administration appointed a commission to review gender-
integrated training, while Congress established a separate commission. The
Administration-appointed commission, headed by former Senator Nancy Kassebaum
Baker, made thirty recommendations aimed at improving recruitment and training.
The recommendations that received the most attention were to provide separate units
SAC provided $500 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment, of which $213 was6
earmarked for C-130 aircraft and $40 million for C-9 aircraft.
and separate barracks for men and women during basic training, a policy the Marine
Corps, but not the other services, has followed. In contrast, a long-standing defense7
advisory group on women in the military — called the Defense Advisory Committee
on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) — also studied the issue and disagreed with
the Kassebaum Baker committee’s recommendation for greater gender separation in
training. Secretary of Defense Cohen subsequently decided to leave it to each of the
services to determine whether to make changes, and none of the services has altered
its policy. The congressionally-mandated commission has not yet completed its
investigations.
Congressional action: The HNSC version of authorization bill included a
provision requiring the services to phase in separate units and separate barracks
for men and women in basic training — the rule in the House did not make in
order any floor amendments to reverse the HNSC requirements, so there was no
floor action on the issue. In stark contrast, SASC prohibited any steps to change
current service practices until the congressionally-mandated commission reports.
Senator Brownback proposed an amendment to the authorization bill to insert
the House language, but on June 24, the Senate approved a Snowe substitute
that would allow the services to follow current practices. So the House and the
Senate were directly at odds on gender-integrated training. HNSC also included
a provision requiring that the Secretary of Defense and the President display
"exemplary conduct," as is required of uniformed commanders under current
law. The authorization conference agreement allows current unit training8
practices to continue but requires separation of sleeping quarters for men and
women in basic training. It also includes a "sense of the House" statement
urging separate training and another "sense of the House" statement to the effect
that senior officials should be held to exemplary standards.
Defense health care. A number of defense health care issues have been under
continued discussion in recent years, including the effectiveness of the DOD program
to provide health care for defense dependents through a managed care system called
Tricare and health care benefits for military retirees. Congress is continuing to
evaluate Tricare, and last year established a demonstration program to test a system,
known as Medicare subvention, in which Medicare will pay the Defense Department
for care provided to military retirees who are eligible for Medicare benefits.
Congressional action: HNSC and SASC both took steps to ensure that military
retirees will continue to have access to health care at defense facilities. Both
established demonstration projects to test alternative means of providing health
care to retirees. The House also approved an amendment to test allowing
military retirees access to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP).
The authorization conference agreement includes three major demonstrations of
Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training and Related7
Issues to the Secretary of Defense, December 16, 1997. The report is available electronically
at [http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/git/index.html].
Section 507 of the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 105-85, H.R. 1119, amended8
Title 10, U.S. Code, to extend a "requirement of exemplary conduct" long applied to the Navy
and Marine Corps to include Army and Air Force commanders.
means to provide continued health care to retirees, including (1) a test of
allowing retirees to enroll in FEHBP, (2) provision of Tricare benefits as a
supplement to Medicare, and (3) providing retirees with Tricare pharmacy
benefits.
Medical research and development earmarks. For several years, defense
appropriations bills have earmarked funds for various medical programs, including
bone marrow transplants, breast cancer and prostate cancer research, and other
disease research. None of these funds have been requested.
Congressional action: The Senate version of the defense appropriations bill set
aside $250 million for medical R&D earmarks, saying that the Defense
Department should determine priorities among various programs. This would
restrict the amount available for such programs. The full committee specified
that funding should not be reduced below the FY1998 level for breast cancer and
prostate cancer research. The House bill, in contrast, included separate amounts
for a number of medical earmarks. The appropriations conference agreement
provides separate earmarked funds for a number of medical programs, including
breast cancer and prostate cancer research, and follows the Senate approach on
a number of other programs.
Year 2000 computer problems. Like other agencies and corporations, the
Defense Department faces a potentially serious problem with its computers in
adjusting to the turn of the century.
Congressional action: The House Appropriations Committee added $1.6 billion
in emergency appropriations, not counted against caps on defense and total
discretionary spending, to help the Defense Department fix its computers. On
the same day, the committee also approved emergency funding for the same
purpose for the Treasury Department. In the full Committee markup, Rep. Obey
criticized this emergency funding as, in effect, an increase in the defense budget,
but a Neumann amendment to remove the money was rejected. On June 19,
however, the House Republican caucus decided not to provide money to fix the
"Y2K" problem as emergency appropriations, and the rule on the defense
appropriations bill, approved on June 24, subsequently removed the $1.6 billion
in emergency funding. The issue of emergency funding for Bosnia and Y2K, and
of offsetting rescissions, was then left to be addressed in a separate supplemental
appropriations bill, and not in the defense appropriations measure. The FY1999
omnibus appropriations bill provides $1.1 billion for the Defense Department for
Y2K conversion, and an additional $2.4 billion for other agencies.
Tritium production. The defense authorization bill approves funding for
Department of Energy weapons related activities as well as for Department of
Defense activities. The defense appropriations bill does not provide funds for DOE,
however — instead, all DOE funding is provided in the energy and water
development appropriations bill. A key issue in the defense authorization bill this year
concerns tritium production for Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs.
Congressional action: The House-passed authorization bill included a measure
that would prohibit the Defense of Energy (DOE) from buying tritium for
nuclear weapons from commercial nuclear reactor. Without this source of
tritium, DOE will have to build new facilities to produce tritium in South
Carolina. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost about
$3 billion over the next forty years to buy tritium from commercial sources and
$10 billion to buy it from new facilities. The Senate-passed authorization bill
included a provision specifically allowing DOE to choose whichever long-term
option it prefers. This was a major issue in the authorization conference. The
conference agreement allows DOE to make the choice, but prohibits
implementing the plan for a year, allowing Congress to review the decision next
year. Senator Kyl has reportedly put a hold on the authorization conference
report because he objects to this provision, feeling that it is urgent for DOE to
pursue a new tritium source. (For a full discussion see CRS Issue Brief 97002,
The Department of Energy's Tritium Production Program, by Richard E.
Rowberg and Clifford Lau.)
Legislation
S.Con.Res. 86 (Domenici)
A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and revising the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998. Reported by the Senate
Budget Committee (S.Rept. 105-170), Mar. 20, 1998. Approved by the Senate (57-
H.Con.Res. 284 (Kasich)
A concurrent resolution revising the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 1998, establishing the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 1999, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Reported by the House Budget
Committee (H.Rept. 105-555), May 27, 1998. Approved by the House (216-204),
June 5, 1998.
S. 1768 (Stevens)
An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for recovery
from natural disasters, and for overseas peacekeeping efforts, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. Reported by the Committee on
Appropriations (S.Rept. 105-168), Mar. 17, 1998. Agreed to by voice vote and
returned to the calendar, Mar. 26, 1998. Senate took up H.R. 3579 as passed by the
House, inserted the provisions of S. 1768, and passed H.R. 3579, as amended, by
unanimous consent, Mar. 31, 1998.
H.R. 3579 (Livingston)
A bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. Reported by the Appropriations
Committee (H.Rept. 105-469), Mar. 27, 1998. Passed by the House, with
amendments (212-208), Mar. 31, 1998. Received in the Senate, Senate inserted the
provisions of S. 1768, and passed by unanimous consent, Mar. 31, 1998. Senate
insisted on its amendments and requested a conference, Mar. 31, 1998. Conference
report filed (H.Rept. 105-504), April 30, 1998. House agreed to conference report
(242-163) and Senate agreed to conference report (88-11), April 30, 1998. Signed
into law (P.L. 105-74) May 1, 1998.
H.R. 3616 (Spence)
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999,
and for other purposes. Introduced and referred to the Committee on National
Security, Apr. 1, 1998. Full committee markup completed and ordered to be reported
(H.Rept. 105-532), May 6, 1998. Considered in the House, May 19, 20, 21, 1998.
Passed by the House, with amendments (357-60), May 21, 1998. Senate took up
H.R. 3616, struck all after the enacting clause, inserted the text of S. 2057, approved
the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent, and requested a conference, June 25,
September 24, 1998. Conference report considered by the Senate, September 30-
October 1, 1998 and passed by the Senate (96-2), October 1, 1998. Signed into law
by the President (P.L. 105-261), October 17, 1998.
S. 2057 (Thurmond)
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999,
and for other purposes. Full committee markup completed, and ordered to be
reported as an original bill without written report, May 7, 1998. A companion bill,
S. 2060, ordered to be reported (S.Rept. 105-189), May 7, 1998. Considered in the
Senate, May 13, 14, and 15, and June 19, 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1998. Approved by the
Senate (88-4), June 25, 1998. Senate inserted the text into H.R. 3616 and passed
H.R. 3616, June 25, 1998.
S. 2132 (Stevens)
An original bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal
year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. Subcommittee markup
held, June 2, 1998. Full Appropriations Committee markup held and ordered to be
reported (S.Rept. 105-200), June 4, 1998. Considered by the Senate and amended
text inserted into H.R. 4103, and H.R. 4103 then passed in lieu of S. 2132 (97-2),
July 30, 1998.
H.R. 4103 (Livingston)
A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. Subcommittee markup held,
June 3-4, 1998. Full Appropriations Committee markup held and ordered to be
reported (H.Rept. 105-591), June 17, 1998. Considered by the House and approved,
with amendments (358-61), June 24, 1998. Taken up by the Senate, which struck all
after the enacting clause and inserted the text of S. 2132, and passed by the Senate
(97-2), July 30, 1998. Conference agreement announced, September 23, 1998 and
reported (H.Rept. 105-746) September 25, 1998. House approved the conference
agreement (369-43), September 28, 1998. Senate approved the conference
agreement (94-2), September 29, 1998. Signed into law by the President (P.L. 105-
262), October 17, 1998
H.R. 4328
A bill making omnibus, consolidated appropriations and emergency appropriations for
FY1999 and for other purposes. Conference agreement reported (H.Rept. 105-825),
October 19, 1998. House approved the conference agreement (333-95), October 20,
1998. Senate approved the conference agreement (65-29), October 21, 1998. Signed
into law by the President (P.L. 105-277), October 21, 1998.
Appendix A: Summary Tables
Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1995 to FY1999
(budget authority in billions of current year dollars)a
Actual Actual Actual Estimate Request
FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999
248.6 242.6 244.3 247.3 250.8
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 1999, Feb. 1998, and prior years.
Notesa.
These figures represent current year dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities and contract
authority, and reflect subsequent rescissions and transfers.
Table A2: Administration Defense Plan, February 1998
(budget authority, current year dollars in billions)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Military Personnel69.770.870.771.673.074.9
Operation and Maintenance94.494.895.997.899.6101.9
Procurement 44.8 48.7 54.1 61.3 60.7 63.5
RDT&E 36.6 36.1 33.9 33.0 33.5 34.3
Military Construction5.14.34.94.43.74.0
Family Housing3.83.53.93.93.94.2
Other 0.5 -0.9 -0.5 -0.9 -0.1 1.2
Subtotal, Department of Defense254.9257.3262.9271.1274.3284.0
Atomic energy defense activities11.712.311.911.511.712.0
Defense-related activities1.01.11.11.11.11.1
Total, National defense267.6270.6275.9283.8287.1297.1
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States
Government, FY1999, February 1998; Congressional Budget Office.
Table A3: Ballistic Missile Defense Funding, FY1999
(millions of dollars)
Auth. Auth. Approp. Approp.
FY1999 House Senate Con- vs. House Senate Con- vs.
Request Auth. Auth. ference Request Approp. Approp. ference Request
Procurement
Patriot PAC-3343.2303.2303.2303.2-40.0303.2192.7248.2-95.0
TMD Battle-Management & C322.822.822.822.80.022.822.822.80.0
Navy Area Defense43.343.343.343.30.043.343.343.30.0
TOTAL PROCUREMENT409.4369.4369.4369.4-40.0369.4258.9314.4-95.0
RDT&E
Applied Research
62173C Support Technologies86.989.7100.9100.9+14.081.9100.997.9+11.0
Advanced Technology Development
63173C Support Technologies166.7176.7292.7282.7+116.0193.7299.7277.7+111.0
[Atmos. Interceptor Tech.]*[24.5][46.5][46.5][46.5][+22.0][46.5][46.5][46.5][+22.0]
[Space-Based Laser]*[58.8][48.8][152.8][152.8][+94.0][48.8][152.8][132.8][+74.0]
Demonstration and Validation
63861C THAAD Dem/Val497.8497.8497.8527.4+29.6392.8497.8445.3-52.5
63868C Navy Theater Wide190.4260.4310.4310.4+120.0340.4295.4338.4+148.0
63869C MEADS Concepts43.043.010.024.0-19.043.010.010.0-33.0
63870C Boost Phase Intercept-- -- -- -- 0.0-- 10.06.5+6.5
63871C National Missile Defense /a/950.5950.5950.5950.50.0950.5950.5950.50.0
63872C Joint Theater Missile Defense176.8174.8176.8176.80.0176.8209.3207.8+31.0
63873C Family of Systems Eng. & Integration96.996.996.996.90.096.996.996.90.0
63874C BMD Technical Operations190.1186.1190.1190.10.0190.1192.1191.1+1.0
63875C International Cooperative Programs50.750.749.962.7+12.050.762.759.7+9.0
63876C Threat and Countermeasures22.122.122.122.10.022.125.124.6+2.5
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
64861C THAAD EMD323.9323.9253.90.0-323.922.90.00.0-323.9
64865C Patriot PAC-3 EMD137.3193.3177.3177.3+40.0177.3182.3182.3+45.0
64867C Navy Area Defense EMD245.8245.8245.8245.80.0245.8245.8245.80.0
TOTAL RDT&E3,178.93,311.73,375.23,167.6-11.32,984.93,178.53,134.5-44.4
Military Construction17.217.217.217.20.017.217.217.20.0
Emergency Appropriations (H.R. 4328)1,000.0
TOTAL Ballistic Missile Defense3,605.53,698.33,761.83,554.2-51.33,371.53,454.64,466.1-139.4
Related Programs
12419A Aerostat Joint Project Office103.930.053.930.0-73.90.045.015.0-88.9
63319F Airborne Laser Program292.2292.2195.2235.2-57.0292.2235.2267.2-25.0
63876F Space-Based Laser35.025.035.035.00.025.035.035.00.0
63441F Space-Based Infrared Architecture160.3160.3160.3160.30.0160.3160.3160.30.0
64441F Space-Based Infrared System -- High538.4538.4538.4538.40.0538.4543.2541.9+3.5
64442F Space-Based Infrared System -- Low33.333.333.333.30.033.333.333.30.0
Sources: Department of Defense, "RDT&E Programs (R-1): Department of Defense Budget for FY1999," Feb. 1998; Department of Defense, "Program
Acquisition Costs by Weapon System: Department of Defense Budget for FY1999," Feb. 1998; S.Rept. 105-189; H.Rept. 105-532.. CongressionalRecord, May 14, 1998, p. S4853. Congressional Record, May 21, 1998, p. H3673. S.Rept. 105-200. H.Rept. 105-736. H.Rept. 105-746.
Table A4: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs:
FY1999 Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request House Senate Conference
Authorization Authorization Authorization
# Proc. R&D # Proc. R&D # Proc. R&D # Proc. R&D
Army
M1A2 Tank Upgrade120675.66.4120675.66.4120675.66.4120675.6
Bradley Base Sustainment-- 285.868.0-- 360.868.0-- 285.868.0-- 355.870.0
Crusader Artillery System-- -- 310.9-- -- 293.6-- -- 310.9-- -- 310.9
MLRS Launchers2485.4-- 24125.4-- 2485.4-- -- 130.4--
AH-64 Apache Longbow-- 611.8-- -- 611.8-- -- 652.0-- -- 611.8--
UH-60 Blackhawk Helo.22218.8-- 30285.2-- 30297.3-- 30285.2--
RAH-66 Comanche Helo.-- -- 367.8-- -- 429.0-- -- 391.8-- -- 391.0
CXX-Medium-Range-- -- -- -- -- -- 315.9-- 315.9--
Aircraft
Navy/Marine Corps
DDG-51 Destroyer32,679.132.632,674.132.632,679.137.632,679.132.6
5454
New Attack Submarine12,002.299.612,012.316.612,002.NA12,002.313.6
9999
CVN-77 Carrier Adv.-- 124.588.5-- 124.588.5-- 124.5138.5-- 124.588.5
Proc.
CV(X) R&D-- -- 190.0-- -- 190.0-- -- 190.0-- -- 110.0
LPD-17/18 Amphib. Ship1638.8-- 1638.8-- 1638.8-- 1638.8--
LHD-8 Adv. Proc.-- -- -- -- 10.0-- -- 50.0-- -- -- 50.0
Sealift Ship Proc.*-- 251.4-- -- 251.4-- -- 251.4-- -- 251.4--
Trident II Missile5323.556.65323.556.65323.556.65323.556.6
AV-8B VSTOL Aircraft12338.413.812335.213.812338.413.812335.213.8
EA-6B Mods-- 75.765.4-- 114.765.4-- 75.765.4-- 100.765.4
E-2C Early Warning Acft.3389.347.83206.447.83389.347.83398.347.8
F/A-18E/F Fighter302,897.260.0272,692.260.0302,897.236.6302,883.260.0
2522
V-22 Aircraft7687.1355.18728.8355.17687.1355.18742.8355.1
Air Force
B-2 Bomber Post--- 189.9131.2-- 275.9131.2-- 189.9131.2-- 275.9131.2
Production
F-15 Fighter Mods.-- 196.6104.2-- 231.4104.2-- 246.6104.2-- 241.6104.2
F-16 Fighter-- -- 125.1266.0100.5-- -- 125.1125.0125.1
F-22 Fighter2785.31,582.2785.31,582.2785.31,582.2771.31,582.
2222
C-17 Aircraft132,900.123.1132,900.123.1132,900.123.1132,900.123.1
C-130 Aircraft163.8-- 8397.0-- 5381.720.07452.6--
E-8C (JSTARS)2463.1123.82512.0118.22535.1123.82535.098.8
Joint/Defense-Wide
Joint Strike Fighter-- -- 919.5-- -- 919.5-- -- 934.5-- -- 934.5
JPATS Trainer Aircraft19107.145.02692.245.022116.245.022116.245.0
Ballistic Missile Defense*-- 409.43,178.-- 369.43,311.-- 369.43,375.-- 369.43,167.
9726
Space-Based Infrared-- -- 571.7-- -- 571.7-- -- 571.7-- -- 571.7
System (AF)
Guard & Reserve-- -- -- -- 300.0-- -- 60.0-- -- 60.0--
Equipment*
*Notes: All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. Sealift ship procurement was requested in Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy, but HNSC, SASC, and SAC provided it under Revolving Funds in the National Defense Sealift Fund. For Ballistic
Missile Defense, the military construction request is $17.2 million, which is often reported as part of the total elsewhere. Guard and
Reserve Equipment refers only to amounts provided in a separate account — the amounts do not include items procured for Guard and
Reserve forces in regular line items.
Table A5: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs:
FY1999 Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
RequestHouse AppropriationsSenate AppropriationsConference Approrpriation
# Proc. R&D # Proc. R&D # Proc. R&D # Proc. R&D
Army
M1A2 Tank Upgrade120675.66.4120666.66.4120671.06.4-- 672.66.4
Bradley Base Sustainment-- 285.868.0-- 371.868.0-- 283.868.0-- 356.868.0
Crusader Artillery System-- -- 310.9-- -- 310.9-- -- 310.9-- -- 310.9
MLRS Launchers2485.4-- 24110.4-- 24143.8-- 24123.8--
AH-64 Apache Longbow-- 611.8-- -- 611.8-- -- 611.8-- -- 611.8--
UH-60 Blackhawk Helo.22218.8-- 30297.3-- 30292.8-- 29272.4--
RAH-66 Comanche Helo.-- -- 367.8-- -- 391.8-- -- 349.2-- -- 367.8
CXX-Medium-Range Aircraft-- -- -- -- -- -- 630.0-- 527.0--
Navy/Marine Corps
DDG-51 Destroyer32,679.5132.632,669.5NA32,679.5NA32,667.1NA
New Attack Submarine12,002.9299.612,002.9321.612,002.9NA12,002.9NA
CVN-77 Carrier Adv. Proc.-- 124.588.5-- 124.588.5-- 124.5138.5-- 124.588.5
CVX/ Future Carrier-- -- 190.0-- -- 100.0-- -- 74.3-- -- 105.0
LPD-17/18 Amphib. Ship1638.8-- 1638.8-- 1638.8-- 1638.8--
LHD-8 Adv. Proc.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 50.0-- -- 45.0--
Sealift Ship Proc.*-- 251.4-- -- 251.4-- -- 251.4-- -- 251.4--
Trident II Missile5323.556.65323.556.65303.556.65313.556.6
AV-8B VSTOL Aircraft12338.413.812335.250.412338.413.812338.440.6
EA-6B Mods-- 75.765.4-- 114.765.4-- 75.765.4-- 95.765.4
E-2C Early Warning Acft.3389.347.83389.347.83389.347.83389.347.8
F/A-18E/F Fighter302,897.2260.0272,677.5235.0302,897.2239.1302,882.2211.6
V-22 Aircraft7687.1355.18750.3355.17687.1355.17664.8355.1
Air Force
B-2 Bomber Post-Production-- 189.9131.2-- 275.9131.2-- 159.9131.2-- 239.9131.2
F-15 Fighter Mods.-- 196.6104.2-- 241.6104.2-- 236.6104.2-- 241.6104.2
F-16 Fighter-- -- 125.1360.0125.1-- -- 145.1130.0140.1
F-22 Fighter2785.31,582.22715.31,582.22785.31,582.22771.31,575.4
C-17 Aircraft132,900.5123.1132,900.5123.1132,900.5108.1132,900.5119.1
C-130 Aircraft163.829.48461.429.44288.429.47494.829.4
E-8C (JSTARS)2463.1123.8-- 535.198.22463.198.8-- 499.1101.8
Joint/Defense-Wide
Joint Strike Fighter-- -- 919.5-- -- 919.5-- -- 934.5-- -- 927.0
JPATS Trainer Aircraft19107.145.022102.245.02297.245.022106.245.0
Ballistic Missile Defense*-- 409.43,178.9-- 369.42,984.9-- 258.93,178.5-- 314.43,466.1
Space-Based Infrared System (AF)-- -- 571.7-- -- 571.7-- -- 576.5-- -- 575.2
Guard & Reserve Equipment*-- -- -- -- 120.0-- -- 247.0-- -- 140.0--
*Notes: All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. Sealift ship procurement was requested in Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy, but HNSC, SASC, and SAC provided it under Revolving Funds in the National Defense Sealift Fund. For Ballistic
Missile Defense, the military construction request is $17.2 million, which is often reported as part of the total elsewhere. Guard and
Reserve Equipment refers only to amounts provided in a separate account — the amounts do not include items procured for Guard and
Reserve forces in regular line items and do not include C-130 aircraft. Does not include emergency funding provided in the omnibus
appropriations bill (H.R. 4328). For emergency amounts, see Table 6, below.
Table A6: Defense-Related Supplemental Appropriations in
FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 4328)
(millions of dollars)
Readiness Enhancements 1,301.0
Overseas Contingency Operations (Bosnia)1,858.6
Disaster Repairs (MilPers, O&M, & MilCon)469.3
Counter-Drug Activities42.0
Classified/Intelligence (O&M Defense-Wide)1,496.6
Ballistic Missile Defense1,000.0
Fisher Houses (Defense Health Program)2.0
Russian Fissile Material Disposition (DOE)525.0
Offset -- Rescission for Fuel Price Savings-67.0
Antiterrorism (Title II)528.9
Year 2000 Conversion (Title III)1,100.0
Total Defense Related (DOE & DOD)8,256.5
Subtotal Department of Defense7,731.5
Subtotal Department of Energy525.0
Table A7: Congressional Action on
FY1999 Defense Authorization Bill by Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
House Senate Conference
Change toChange toChange to
Title Request* Amount Request Amount Request Amount Request
Military Personnel70.870.7-0.170.6-0.270.6-0.2
Operation & Maintenance94.893.0-1.794.4-0.493.5-1.3
Procurement 48.7 49.1 +0.3 49.5 +0.8 49.5 +0.8
RDT&E 36.1 36.2 +0.1 35.9 -0.2 36.0 -0.1
Military Construction4.34.7+0.44.9+0.64.9+0.6
Family Housing3.53.50.03.60.13.50.0
Revolving & Mgmnt. Funds0.61.5+0.80.5-0.11.5+0.8
Trust Funds/Other0.30.30.00.30.00.30.0
Offsetting Receipts-1.6-1.60.0-1.6-0.0-1.60.0
Total DOD*257.5257.50.0258.1+0.6258.2+0.7
DOE Defense-Related12.311.9-0.411.9-0.412.0-0.3
Other Defense-Related1.11.00.01.00.01.00.0
Asset Sales/Transfers-0.7-0.7
Total National Defense*270.9270.4-0.5270.5-0.4270.4-0.4
*Notes: The request reflects CBO scoring and is shown as reported in the House. Senate amounts have been adjusted to be
consistent with the structure of the request as reported in the House. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Sources: H.Rept. 105-532; S.Rept. 105-189. H.Rept. 105-736.
Table A8: Congressional Action on FY1999
Defense Appropriations Bill by Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
House Senate Conference
Change toChange toChange to
Title Request Amount Request Amount Request Amount Request
Military Personnel70.870.6-0.270.5-0.370.6-0.2
Operation & Maintenance83.583.9+0.483.50.084.0+0.5
Procurement 47.8 48.5 +0.6 48.6 +0.8 48.6 +0.8
RDT&E 36.1 35.9 -0.2 36.1 0.0 36.8 -0.7
Military ConstructionNANANANANANANA
Family HousingNANANANANANANA
Other DOD Programs11.811.80.012.0+0.211.80.0
Related Agencies0.40.40.00.40.00.40.0
General Provisions0.1-1.1-1.2-1.3-1.4-1.7-1.8
Total DOD*251.0250.7-0.3250.5-0.5250.5-0.5
*Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. These data are not comparable with authorization figures in Table A6, because the
structure of accounts differs — the largest difference is that the authorization bills include Defense Health funding in Operation
and Maintenance, while the appropriations bills provide Defense Health funding in Other DOD Programs.
Sources: H.Rept. 105-591; S.Rept. 105-200; H.Rept. 105-746.
Table A9: Final Congressional Action on National Defense (050)
Authorization and Appropriations by Appropriations Bill and Title*
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
RequestAuthorizationChange toAppropriationsChange to
RequestRequest
Defense Appropriations
Military Personnel70,777 70,592 -18570,579 -198
Operation & Maintenance94,702 93,372 -1,33093,376 -1,326
Procurement48,710 49,268 +55848,870 +160
RDT&E36,079 35,969 -11036,561 +482
Revolving & Management Funds750 1,511 +7611,521 +771
CIA Retirement/Intelligence Community313 313 0304 -9
Asset Sales/Leases/Other-9 -748 -739-724 -715
Subtotal Defense Appropriations251,323 250,276 -1,047250,486 -837
Military Construction Appropriations
Military Construction4,302 4,907 +6054,908 +606
Family Housing3,483 3,541 +583,542 +59
Subtotal Military Construction7,785 8,449 +6648,450 +665
Energy & Water Appropriations12,298 11,968 -33012,019 -279
VA-HUD Appropriations131 88 -43131 0
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations336 336 0386 +50
Transportation Appropriations309 309 0300 -9
Offsets, Receipts, Etc.-1,271 -1,266 +5-1,266 +5
Total Budget Function 050270,910 270,158 -752270,505 -405
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
*Notes: Titles are organized according to the request and authorization structure. Request reflects Congressional
Budget Office scoring. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Appendix B: Relationships Between the
National Defense Budget Function and
Defense-Related Appropriations Bills
The annual defense appropriations bill provides funds for military activities of the Department
of Defense (DOD) and for other purposes. Five 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;
!the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which funds national
security-related activities of the FBI; and
!the transportation appropriations bill, which funds some defense-related
activities of the Coast Guard.
The defense appropriations bill is by far the largest of the defense-related appropriations
measures. Table B-1 provides a breakdown FY1999 funding by appropriations subcommittee. The
national defense budget function also includes mandatory funding. Net mandatory funding for
defense is a relatively small negative amount, which mainly reflects receipts from sales of items to
the public.
Table B1: FY1999 National Defense Appropriations Request and
Current 302(b) Allocations by Appropriations Subcommittee
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Subcommittee Request House Senate
Defense Discretionary
Commerce, Justice, State, & the Judiciary336 386335
National Security/Defense250,763 250,284250,324
Energy & Water Development12,298 12,01912,030
Military Construction7,779 8,4508,450
Transportation & Related Agencies309 300300
Veterans Affairs, HUD, & Independent Agencies131 131131
Subtotal Defense Discretionary271,616 271,570271,570
Defense Mandatory-985
Total National Defense270,631
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government: FY1999,
Table S-8, p. 355; H.Rept. 105-662; S.Rept. 105-345. Note: The most recent House figures were not
reported to show national defense funding.
Appendix C: Defense Budget Trends
The Administration’s defense budget request for FY1999 and projected defense
budgets through FY2002 reflect the White House-congressional budget agreement
that was finalized in June 1997. Under the Administration plan, extended through
FY2003, budget authority for national defense will grow slowly in nominal terms, but
it will be essentially flat when adjusted for inflation. This marks the end of a long
period in which defense spending has steadily declined from its peak in the mid-1980s.
By FY2003, budget authority for national defense will be almost 38% below the level
in FY1985. Table C1 shows the trend in current year dollars and in constant FY1999
prices.
Table C1. Administration National Defense Budget Projections
(current and constant FY1999 dollars in billions)
Fiscal Year1985.......199819992000200120022003
Budget Authority
Current year dollars294.7.......267.6270.6275.9283.8287.1297.1
Constant FY1999 dollars429.8.......273.0270.6270.0271.6268.7271.6
Real growth/decline-3.2%-0.9%-0.2%+0.6%-1.1%+1.1%
Cumulative change from FY85-36.5%-37.0%-37.2%-36.8%-37.5%-36.8%
Outlays
Current year dollars252.7.......264.1265.5268.7269.8272.1288.5
Constant FY1999 dollars373.8.......269.4265.5263.0258.3254.9264.6
Real growth/decline-4.4%-1.4%-0.9%-1.8%-1.3%+3.8%
Sources: Current year figures from Office of Management and Budget; 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. Under plans established by the Quadrennial Defense Review, released
on May 19, 1997, active duty end-strength will decline from 2.2 million in FY1987
to 1.36 million by FY2003, a reduction of 36%. Funding for weapons acquisition has
declined even more steeply. The FY1999 budget requests $48.7 billion for weapons
procurement and $36.1 billion for research, development, test and evaluation
(RDT&E). Adjusted for inflation, proposed procurement funding is 65% below the
level in FY1985 and the total for procurement plus R&D is down by 54%.
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 $61.3 billion
for procurement (see Table A2 in Appendix A). To reach this level, 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). (For detailed figures on trends in defense spending,
see Stephen Daggett and Mary Tyszkiewicz, Defense Budget for FY1999: Data
Summary, CRS Report 98-155, Feb. 23, 1998.)
For the past three years, Congress has added substantial amounts to the annual
defense budget request. Because of last year's budget agreement, however, Congress
has no room to add to the FY1999 request. Table C2 shows congressional additions
in to the request in recent years.
Table C2: Congressional Additions to Administration
National Defense Budget Requests, FY1996-98
(current year dollars in millions)
FY1996 FY1997 FY1998
Administration Request257,755 254,367 265,579
Congressional Change to Request+7,457 +10,986 +2,383
Appropriations (all bills)265,212 265,353 267,962
Later Adjustments+795 +4,945 -402
Current Estimate266,007 270,298 267,560
Sources: FY1996 and FY1997 request, congressional change, and appropriations from Department of Defense,
“National Defense Budget Estimates for FY1998,” March 1997; FY1998 request, congressional change, and
appropriations from Congressional Budget Office — note that the request reflects CBO scoring of the
Administration submission; current estimate for all years from Office of Management and Budget, “Historical
Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999, Feb. 1998.
Note: Later adjustments are due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and technical adjustments. The
largest technical adjustments are in contract authority for Defense Working Capital Funds.
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 93056. Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman.
CRS Issue Brief 98018. China-U.S. Relations, by Kerry Dumbaugh.
CRS Issue Brief 92056. Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, by
Shirley A. Kan.
CRS Issue Brief 97002. The Department of Energy's Tritium Production Program,
by Richard E. Rowberg and Clifford Lau.
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 96029. Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues, by
David Burrelli.
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 93062. Space Launch Vehicles: Government Requirements and
Commercial Competition, by Marcia Smith.
CRS Issue Brief 98044, Supplemental Appropriations: Emergency Agriculture Aid,
Embassy Security, Y2K Computer Conversion, and Defense, by Larry Nowels.
CRS Issue Brief 92115. Tactical Aircraft Modernization Issues for Congress, by
Bert Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 98028. Theater Air and Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by
Robert D. Shuey.
CRS Issue Brief 86103. V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft, by Bert Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 92008. Women in the Armed Forces, by David Burrelli.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 97-719. The Army Reserve Components: Strength and Force Structure
Issues, by Robert L. Goldich.
CRS Report 98-485. China: Possible Missile Technology Transfers from U.S.
Satellite Export Policy — Background and Chronology, by Shirley A. Kan.
CRS Report 98-155. Defense Budget for FY1999: Data Summary, by Stephen
Daggett and Mary T. Tyszkiewicz.
CRS Report 97-316. Department of Defense’s Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E) Program: A Primer, by John D. Moteff.
CRS Report 98-120. Iraq Crisis: U.S. and Allied Forces, by Alfred B. Prados.
CRS Report 98-198. Joint Strike Fighter: Background, Status and Issues, by Bert
H. Cooper.
CRS Report 98-476. Long Beach: Proposed Lease by China Ocean Shipping Co.
(COSCO) at Former Naval Base, by Shirley A. Kan.
CRS Report 97-674. Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by David
Lockwood.
CRS Report 97-862. National Missile Defense: Status of the Debate, by Stephen
Daggett and Robert D. Shuey.
CRS Report 98-359. Navy CVN-77 and CVX Aircraft Carrier Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report 97-1044. Navy/DARPA Maritime Fire Support Demonstrator (Arsenal
Ship) Program: Issues Arising from its Termination, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report 97-700. Navy DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer Program: Background
Information and Issues 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, An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals
for Fiscal Year 1999, March 1998.
Congressional Budget Office, A Look at Tomorrow’s Tactical Air Forces, by Lane
Pierrot and Jo Ann Vines, January 1997.
Congressional Budget Office, Paying for Military Readiness and Upkeep: Trends in
Operation and Maintenance Spending, by Amy Belasco, September 1997.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Health Care: Operational Difficulties and
System Uncertainties Pose Continuing Challenges for TRICARE, Report No.
HEHS-98-136R, Apr. 10, 1998.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Observations on Personnel
Readiness in Later Deploying Army Divisions, Report No. T-NSIAD-98-126,
March 20, 1998.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Reports to Congress Provide
Few Details on Deficiencies and Solutions, Report No. NSIAD-98-68,
March 30, 1998.
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, Report No. NSIAD-96-98, June 18,
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://www.cbo.gov]
General Accounting Office
[http://www.gao.gov]
Office of Management & Budget
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html]
FY1999 Federal Budget Publications
[http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/budget/index.html]
Defense Department and Related Sites
Defense LINK
[http://www.defenselink.mil/]
Defense Issues (Indexed major speeches)
[http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/]
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) FY1999 Budget Materials
[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/99budget]
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller)
[http://www.asafm.army.mil]
Army Link — the U.S. Army Home Page
[http://www.army.mil/]
Army Chief of Staff Presentations
[http://www.hqda.army.mil/ocsa/present.htm]
Navy On-Line Home Page
[http://www.navy.mil/index-real.html]
Navy Budget Resources Directory
[http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/budget]
Navy Public Affairs Library
[http://www.navy.mil/navpalib/.www/subject.html]
United States Marine Corps Home Page
[http://www.usmc.mil/]
AirForceLINK
[http://www.af.mil/]
Air Force Financial Management Home Page
[http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/SAFFM/]
Air Force FY1999 Budget Justification Material
[http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/SAFFM/FMB/just.html]