APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY2001: DEFENSE

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2001: Defense
Updated January 12, 2001
Stephen Daggett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress

A^BSTRACT
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.
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.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]

Appropriations for FY2001: Defense
Summary
House and the Senate action on annual FY2001 defense funding was completed
in December when Congress approved the FY2001 omnibus appropriations bill. In
all, Congress provided about $310.0 billion for national defense, including $287.8
billion in the Department of Defense Appropriations bill. The national defense total
is about $4.7 billion above the Administration’s request.
The conference agreement on the FY2001 Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations/Omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 4577, approved in the House and
Senate on December 15, provides some additional FY2001 funds for the Department
of Defense, including $150 million to repair the USS Cole, $100 million for classified
programs related to operations overseas, and $43.5 million for military construction.
Section 1403 of the bill also makes an across-the-board cut of 0.22% in all FY2001
discretionary funds, including defense, though military personnel funding is exempted
from the reduction. In all, this will reduce FY2001 defense funding by $520 million.
On October 11, the House approved an a conference agreement on the FY2001
defense authorization bill, H.R. 4205, by a vote of 382-31. The Senate approved the
agreement on October 12 by a vote of 90-3. The President signed the bill into law on
October 30 (P.L. 106-398). A conference agreement on the defense appropriations
bill, H.R. 4576, was approved in the House on July 19 and in the Senate on July 27,
and the President signed the bill on August 9 (P.L. 106-259). Earlier the House and
the Senate approved a conference agreement on the FY2001 military construction
appropriations bill, H.R. 4425, and the President signed the measure into law on July
13 (P.L. 106-246). This bill includes supplemental appropriations for FY2000
military operations in Kosovo and Colombia, for increased fuel and medical care
costs, and for some other defense programs.
In action on key issues, authorization conferees agreed to (1) provide a
permanent guarantee of health care for Medicare-eligible military retirees that was
included in the Senate bill, but that expired after two years; (2) provide compensation
for workers made ill by exposure to toxic materials in the nation’s nuclear weapons
program; (3) drop a House-passed provision mandating troop withdrawals from
Kosovo if allies do not meet burdensharing commitments (though the bill includes
extensive reporting requirements); and (4) drop anti-hate crimes legislation that was
attached to the Senate-passed bill. The retiree health care measure will make all
military retirees eligible for health care through the military health care system.
Conferees also agreed to a comprehensive retail and mail-order pharmacy benefit.
According to preliminary CBO estimates, the bill’s retiree health care provisions will
cost $40 billion more over the next 10-years than benefits DOD currently provides.
Several major weapons programs also received attention in this year’s defense
debate. The authorization and appropriations conference agreements reduced funding
for the Joint Strike Fighter because of program delays. The authorization and
appropriations bills also approved additional funding for the Army’s “transformation”
plan, including funds to equip a second medium-weight brigade in FY2001. The
authorization conference, however, included a requirement that the Army carry out
additional comparative testing of armored vehicles before outfitting a third brigade.

Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRS DivisionTelephone
AcquisitionValerie GrassoFDT7-7617
Aerospace ForcesChristopher BolkcomFDT7-2577
Arms SalesRichard GrimmettFDT7-7675
Base Closure; AcquisitionDavid LockwoodFDT7-7621
BombersDagnija Sterste-PerkinsFDT7-7631
Defense BudgetStephen DaggettFDT7-7642
Defense BudgetMary TyszkiewiczFDT7-3144
Defense IndustryGary PaglianoFDT7-1750
Defense R&DMichael DaveyRSI7-7074
Defense R&DRichard NunnoRSI7-7037
Defense R&DJohn MoteffRSI7-1435
Ground ForcesEdward BrunerFDT7-2775
Ground ForcesSteven BowmanFDT7-7613
IntelligenceRichard BestFDT7-7607
Military ConstructionMary TyszkiewiczFDT7-3144
Military PersonnelDavid BurrelliFDT7-8033
Missile DefenseRobert ShueyFDT7-7677
Missile DefenseSteven HildrethFDT7-7635
Naval ForcesRonald O’RourkeFDT7-7610
Nuclear WeaponsJonathan MedaliaFDT7-7632
Peace OperationsNina SerafinoFDT7-7667
Personnel; ReservesRobert GoldichFDT7-7633
Strategic ForcesAmy WoolfFDT7-2379
War PowersDavid AckermanALD7-7965
War PowersLouis FisherG&F7-8676
War PowersRichard GrimmettFDT7-7675
Abbreviations:
FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
G&F = Government and Finance Division
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Contents
Most Recent Developments........................................1
Background .................................................... 1
Status ........................................................ 2
Overview of the Administration Request..............................4
Overall Funding.............................................4
Key Aspects of the Administration Request........................6
The $60 Billion Procurement Target and the Defense
“Train Wreck” Debate....................................8
Military Service “Unfunded Priorities Lists”.......................10
Key Issues in Congress..........................................11
The Level of Defense Spending................................11
Defense Health Care........................................13
National Missile Defense (NMD)...............................18
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Programs........................19
C-17 and C-130 Cargo Aircraft................................20
F-15 and F-16 Aircraft.......................................21
F/A-18E/F, F-22, and Joint Strike Fighter Programs................21
V-22 “Osprey” Tilt-Rotor Aircraft..............................22
Shipbuilding Programs.......................................23
Army “Transformation”......................................23
Department of Energy Security................................25
Cooperative Threat Reduction.................................25
Military Operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Colombia, and the Persian Gulf..26
Navy Live-Fire Testing at Vieques, Puerto Rico....................27
Social Issues..............................................27
Base Closures.............................................28
China Policy...............................................28
The Revolution in Military Affairs/Unmanned Combat Systems........29
Legislation .................................................... 29
Budget Resolution..........................................29
Supplemental Appropriations..................................30
Defense Authorization.......................................30
Defense Appropriations......................................30
For Additional Reading..........................................31
CRS Issue Briefs...........................................31
CRS Reports..............................................32
Other Resources...........................................35
Selected World Wide Web Sites................................36
Appendix A: Summary Tables.....................................38

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2001 Defense Appropriations.....................4
Table 2. National Defense Budget Function and Department of Defense
Budget, Administration Projections, FY1998-2005..................6
Table 3: FY2001 Defense Appropriations, Congressional Action by Title....13
Table 4: FY2001 National Defense Funding by Appropriations Bill.........13
Table 5: Estimated Costs of Military Retiree Health Care Provisions........17
Table 6: Congressional Action on FY2001 Joint Strike Fighter Funding......22
Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2001.................38
Table A2. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs,
FY2001: Authorization......................................39
Table A3. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs,
FY2001: Appropriations.....................................40
Table A4. Ballistic Missile Defense Funding..........................41
Table A5. National Defense Budget Request by Appropriations Bill........42
Table A6. National Defense Budget Function Funding in the
Congressional Budget Resolution...............................43
Table A7. Administration National Defense Budget Function Projection
by Appropriations Title, Budget Authority, FY1999-2005............44
Table A8: FY2000 Supplemental Appropriations for the
Department of Defense......................................45

Appropriations for FY2001: Defense
Most Recent Developments
On December 15, both the House and the Senate approved a conference
agreement on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, H.R. 4577, which also
incorporates other appropriations measures. The bill makes an across-the-board cut
of about $520 million in FY2001 defense funding but also provides about $300
million more for some defense programs. Earlier, on October 6, House and Senate
conferees announced an agreement on the FY2001 defense authorization bill, H.R.
4205/S. 2549. The House approved the agreement by a vote of 382-31 on October
11, and the Senate approved the measure by a vote of 90-3 on October 11. By a vote
of 84-9, the Senate waived a point of order that the cost of the bill’s retiree health
care provisions exceeds limits on long-term mandatory spending. The President
signed the bill into law (P.L. 106-398) on October 30. On August 9, the President
signed the FY2001 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 4576, into law (P.L. 106-259),
and on July 13, the President signed the FY2001 military construction
appropriations bill, H.R. 4425 (P.L. 106-246). The military construction bill
incorporates FY2000 supplemental appropriations for military operations in Kosovo
and elsewhere, for counterdrug assistance to Colombia, and for some other defense
programs.
Background
Congress provides funding for national defense programs in several annual
appropriations measures, the largest of which is the defense appropriations bill.
Congress also acts every year on a national defense authorization bill, which
authorizes programs funded in all of the regular appropriations measures. The
authorization bill addresses defense programs in almost precisely the same level of
detail as the defense-related appropriations, and congressional debate about major
defense policy and funding issues usually occurs mainly in action on the authorization.
Because the defense authorization and appropriations bills are so closely related,
this report tracks congressional action on both measures.
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 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, activities of the Selective Service
System, and support for National Science Foundation Antarctic
research;
^!the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which funds
national security-related activities of the FBI, the Department of
Justice, and some other agencies; and
^!the transportation appropriations bill, which funds some defense-
related activities of the Coast Guard.
The Administration’s FY2001 budget includes $305.4 billion for the national defense
budget function, of which $284.3 billion is requested in the defense appropriations
bill. See Table A4 in the appendix for a breakdown of the Administration national
defense budget function request by appropriations bill.
Status
Action on major defense funding bills is coming to a close this year. So far, the
President has signed into law the FY2001 defense appropriations, the FY2001 military
construction appropriations, and, as part of the military construction bill, FY2000
supplemental appropriations. A conference agreement on the annual defense
authorization has not yet been reached, but it is expected imminently. Action on
major defense bills to date includes the following:
^!FY2001 congressional budget resolution: The House Budget
Committee marked up its version of the annual budget resolution,
H.Con.Res. 290, on March 14, and the full House passed a modified
version on March 23. The House measure recommended $306.3
billion in budget authority ($307.3 billion in discretionary funding)
for the national defense budget function. The Senate Budget
Committee ordered its version of the bill, S.Con.Res. 101, to be
reported on March 30, recommending $305.8 billion for national
defense. On the floor, the Senate approved an amendment that
added $4 billion to the total, and the Senate passed the amended
measure, recommending $309.8 billion for defense, on April 7. On

April 13, both the House and the Senate approved a conference
agreement on the budget resolution which includes $309.9 billion for
national defense.
^!FY2000 supplemental appropriations: By early March, the
Administration had requested $5.3 billion of FY2000 supplemental
appropriations, including $2.3 billion for the Department of Defense,
of which $2.0 billion was for peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and
$98 million for support of counter-drug activities in Colombia. On
March 9, the House Appropriations Committee marked up a bill,
H.R. 3908, that provided $9.1 billion in supplemental appropriations,
including $5.0 billion for DOD. The additional money for DOD
included $1.6 billion for petroleum price increases and $854 million
for increased defense health program costs. On March 29, the full
House approved an amendment to the bill that provided an additional
$4 billion for defense programs, all of which was made available
through September 30, 2001. The Senate, however, declined to
consider the bill and decided to fold supplemental appropriations for
FY2000 into regular FY2001 appropriations bills. Under the
conference agreement on the FY2001 budget resolution, the extra $4
billion that the House provided for defense could be incorporated
into the regular FY2001 defense appropriations bills. On June 29,
the House, and on June 30, the Senate, approved a conference
agreement on the FY2001 military construction appropriations bills,
H.R. 4425, which includes supplemental appropriations for military
operations in Kosovo and elsewhere and for counterdrug assistance
to Colombia, and the President signed the measure into law (P.L.
106-246) on July 13. For a table showing congressional action on
DOD programs in the supplemental, see Table A8 in the Appendix.
For a full discussion of the supplemental, see CRS Report RL30457,
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia, Kosovo,
Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and Other
Initiatives, by Larry Nowels et al.
^!House version of the defense authorization bill: On May 10, the
House Armed Services Committee marked up and ordered to be
reported its version of the annual defense authorization bill, H.R.
4205. The bill was considered on the floor on May 17 and 18, and
the House approved the measure on May 18. House and Senate
conferees announced an agreement on the measure on October 6,
and the House approved the conference report by a vote of 382-31
on October 11, and the Senate approved it on October 12 by a vote
of 90-3. The President signed the bill into law on October 30 (P.L.

106-398).

^!Senate version of the defense authorization bill: On May 10, the
Senate Armed Services Committee marked up and ordered to be
reported its version of the FY2001 defense authorization bill, S.
2549. Floor action began on June 6, and the Senate approved the
measure on July 13.

^!House version of the defense appropriations bill: On May 11, the
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version
of the FY2001 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4576), and on May
25, the full Appropriations Committee completed its markup
(H.Rept. 106-644). The House approved the measure on June 7. A
conference agreement on the bill was filed on July 17 (H.Rept. 106-
754), the House approved the agreement on July 19, the Senate
approved it on July 27, and the President signed the bill into law on
August 9 (P.L. 106-259).
^!Senate version of the defense appropriations bill: The Senate
Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2001
Defense appropriations bill, S. 2593 on May 18. The Senate began
to consider the bill on the floor on June 8 when it took up the House
version, H.R. 4576 and substituted the text of S. 2593. The Senate
approved the measure on June 13.
^!Military construction appropriations: On May 9, the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees marked up different versions of
the military construction appropriations bill – S. 2521 in the Senate
and H.R. 4425 in the House. The House passed the bill on May 16,
and the Senate on May 18. The House agreed to a conference report
on the bill on June 29, and the Senate on June 30. The President
signed the bill into law (P.L. 106-246) on July 13. For a full
discussion, see CRS Report RL30510, Appropriations for FY2001:
Military Construction, by Mary Tyszkiewicz.
Table 1. Status of FY2001 Defense Appropriations
SubcommitteeConference Report
Markup House House Senate Senate Conference Approval Public
Report Passage Report Passage Report Law
House Senate House Senate
5/25/00 6/7/00 5/18/00 6/13/00 7/17/00 7/19/00 7/27/00 8/9/00

5/11/005/17/00H.Rept.(376-58)S.Rept.(95-3)H.Rept.(367-58)(91-9)(P.L 106-

106-644 106-298 106-754 259)

Overview of the Administration Request
Overall Funding
The Administration requested a total of $305.4 billion in new budget authority
for the national defense budget function in FY2001. There are several ways to put
the overall request into context – one is to compare the request to the amount
Congress provided for defense in FY2000; a second is to calculate the inflation-
adjusted growth or decline in projected spending from year to year; and a third is to
compare the amount the Administration requested for FY2001 with the amount it
planned a year earlier to request for FY2001.

^!Compared to FY2000 appropriations for defense: In 1999,
Congress appropriated a total of $289.7 billion for national defense
in FY2000. The total includes amounts provided in the regular
appropriations bills (both as regular appropriations and as emergency
appropriations) and $3.8 billion FY2000 funds for a pay raise in the
FY1999 Kosovo supplemental appropriations measure (P.L. 106-
31), offset by an across-the-board reduction of 0.38% imposed by
the FY2000 consolidated appropriations bill (P.L. 106-113).
Compared to the FY2000 enacted level, the Administration request
represented an increase of $15.7 billion for the national defense
budget function, and of $14.8 billion for the Department of Defense.
^!The rate of real growth or decline: As Table 2 shows, the
Administration plan represented real growth of about 1.3% above
inflation compared to the Administration’s estimate of the FY2000
defense funding level (which included, among other things, a $2.3
billion supplemental appropriations request.) The Administration
projected that defense spending would decline modestly, adjusted for
inflation, in FY2002 and would then be essentially level, again
adjusted for inflation, through FY2005. Longer term White House
projections, not shown here, assume that national defense budget
authority will remain flat, adjusted for inflation, through FY2009.
Although this represents an end to the decline in defense spending
that had been underway since the mid-1980s, many argue that the
defense budget should increase, at least at a modest pace, over the
next few years in order to maintain readiness and permit an increase
in weapons modernization (see below for a further discussion).
Indeed, Secretary Cohen and other senior officials have agreed that
weapons procurement budgets, in particular, should turn up
substantially in the future. Long-term Administration defense plans,
however, still assumed that budgets would be flat for the foreseeable
future.
^!Compared to the previous year’s Administration plan for
FY2001: In February 1999, when it presented its FY2000 budget
request to Congress, the Administration projected FY2001 funding
of $300.5 billion for the national defense budget function and of
$286.4 billion for the Department of Defense. The February 2000
FY2001 request was $4.9 billion higher for the national defense
budget function and $4.7 billion higher for DOD. The funding
increases included $2.2 billion to cover increased costs of military
contingency operations (mainly peacekeeping in Kosovo) and $1.4
billion to cover increased fuel costs. In the past, the Defense
Department has often had to absorb such increased costs within its
planned budget, and the decision to add money to cover such¹

expenses represents a significant change in policy.
¹ It is also worth noting that the FY2001 DOD budget has more purchasing power than was
(continued...)

Table 2. National Defense Budget Function and Department of Defense
Budget, Administration Projections, FY1998-2005
(current and constant FY2001 dollars in billions)
Actual Actual Est. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj.
Fiscal Year:199819992000*20012002200320042005
National Defense Budget Function
Budget Authority
Current year dollars271.3292.1293.3305.4309.2315.6323.4331.7
Constant FY2001 dollars290.8307.0301.6305.4302.7302.3302.4302.8
Real growth/decline-1.7%+5.6%-1.8%+1.3%-0.9%-0.1%+0.0%+0.1%
Outlays
Current year dollars268.4274.9290.6291.2298.4307.4316.5330.7
Constant FY2001 dollars286.9288.7298.8291.2292.2295.0296.6302.7
Real growth/decline-2.7%+0.6%+3.5%-2.6%+0.4%+0.9%+0.5%+2.0%
Department of Defense Budget
Budget Authority
Current year dollars258.5278.4279.9291.1294.8300.9308.3316.4
Constant FY2001 dollars277.2292.6287.9291.1288.6288.2288.3288.9
Real growth/decline-1.8%+5.5%-1.6%+1.1%-0.9%-0.1%+0.0%+0.2%
Outlays
Current year dollars256.1261.4277.5277.5284.3293.0301.9315.8
Constant FY2001 dollars273.8274.5285.3277.5278.4281.2282.8289.0
Real growth/decline-2.8%+0.3%+3.9%-2.7%+0.3%+1.0%+0.6%+2.2%
Sources: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2001 , Feb. 2000; CRS calculations based on deflators from Department of
Defense Comptroller.
*Note: The FY2000 level represents an Administration estimate that assumes congressional enactment
of proposed supplemental appropriations of $2.3 billion.
Key Aspects of the Administration Request
With some notable exceptions, the FY2001 defense request, and the FY2001-
2005 long-term plan, reflected the continuation of DOD priorities that had been in
place for several years. Significant aspects of the Administration request, including
changes from earlier plans, include:

¹ (...continued)
planned last year for two other reasons. First, except for fuel, inflation has been lower than
was expected last year, and DOD has, in effect, been allowed to keep the money saved and
apply it to additional purchases. Second, last year it was assumed that the FY2001 defense
budget would have to absorb $3.1 billion of “advance appropriations” for military
construction projects that were actually part of the FY2000 budget request. Congress rejected
the use of advance appropriations, however, and fully funded FY2000 military construction
projects in the FY2000 budget. So the extra $3.1 billion is available for other purposes, since
the FY2001 budget was not reduced to reflect the additional FY2000 funds.

^!Army National Guard and Reserve force levels: Secretary of
Defense Cohen decided not to complete reductions in Army National
Guard and Reserve troop levels that were planned following the
1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR called for a
reduction of 45,000 Army Guard and Reserve positions, of which
20,000 were implemented by the end of 1999. As a result, a decision
on the remaining 25,000 positions will be deferred pending the
outcome of the next QDR, to be carried out in 2001. Secretary
Cohen explained that Army Guard and Reserve forces have taken on
much greater responsibility for peacekeeping and other missions
recently.
^!Army “transformation:” The Army has undertaken a major effort
to develop and field a more flexible and more easily deployed
“medium weight” force structure. This entails, (1) as an interim step,
buying an existing medium-weight armored vehicle to equip
redesigned brigades; (2) accelerating several other weapons
programs, such as the Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank missile, the High
Mobility Artillery Rocket System, the Tactical Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle, and a number of command, control, and communications
programs; and (3) accelerating development of the Future Combat
Vehicle (FCV). It also entails reducing other programs to offset at
least part of the increased costs. Major program reductions, which
were a matter of congressional scrutiny, included slowing and
redesigning the Crusader artillery program, and eliminating, among
other things, the Grizzly engineer vehicle and the Wolverine Heavy
Assault Bridge.
^!Submarines and other ship-building programs: DOD also made
some adjustments in Navy shipbuilding programs – though they were
not as extensive as some Members of Congress had expected in the
autumn of 1999. Following a Joint Chiefs of Staff review of attack
submarine (SSN) force levels, DOD agreed to maintain 55 SSNs in
the force, rather than shrink to 50, as had been planned. The new
FY2001-2005 shipbuilding plan included a reserve of $1.1 billion for
either refueling overhauls of existing SSNs or to convert Trident
missile submarines into attack submarines carrying large numbers of
cruise missiles. Regarding surface combatant ships, the Navy
extended development of the new DD-21 destroyer by one year,
through FY2005, and it stretched out procurement of remaining,
current-generation, DDG-51 destroyers until then. In a program of
continuing interest to Congress, DOD requested no money for LHD
amphibious ship procurement, even though Congress provided partial
funding of $356 million for one ship, the LHD-8, in the FY2000
budget.
^!Aircraft programs: DOD made no major changes in fighter aircraft
programs, but changes in cargo aircraft procurement were
significant. DOD requested 12 C-17 aircraft, rather than 15, as had
been planned. Officials expected that the decline in U.S. purchases

could be made up by British procurement. DOD also requested
funds for 4 C-130 aircraft in order, officials said, to avoid
temporarily shutting down the production line, which would cost an
estimated $600 million to restart. Some have argued that this
vindicates Congress’s decision to add funds for C-130s in recent
years. The Navy also restructured its trainer aircraft programs.
^!Missile defense: In its revised long-term budget plan, the Defense
Department increased projected funding for National Missile Defense
by $2.3 billion over the FY2001-2005 period, to a total of $10.4
billion, saying this will fully support the option of deploying an initial
system in Alaska beginning in 2005. DOD also made some changes
in theater missile defense (TMD) programs, the most significant
being a cut of $859 million, over five years, in the Air Force Airborne
Laser (ABL) program. As Congress directed in the FY2000 defense
bills, DOD included separate funding lines for the Theater High-
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and for the Navy Theater
Wide (NTW) program – both are high altitude, long-range TMD
programs for defense against short- to intermediate-range missiles.
The $60 Billion Procurement Target and
the Defense “Train Wreck” Debate
In presenting the FY2001 defense plan to Congress, Secretary Cohen and other
senior officials emphasized one key aspect of the request – the request includes $60.3
billion for weapons procurement. The $60 billion weapons budget is particularly
important because it has become a litmus test of support for a strong defense. In
1995, the Joint Chiefs of Staff urged an increase in procurement funding – then at
about $45 billion – to $60 billion a year beginning in FY1998. This was, they argued,
the minimum level necessary over time to “recapitalize” an inventory of weapons that
would otherwise begin to age very rapidly. The Administration originally committed
to reach that level by FY2000, but fell short as money was reallocated to maintain
short-term readiness. Achieving the $60 billion target in FY2001, therefore, became
a matter of some political significance.
As it has turned out, the $60 billion procurement level is now seen by many
defense proponents in Congress as wholly inadequate. In the congressional defense
committees the issue has been how far short of necessary levels the budget remains,
with answers ranging from $20 or $30 billion a year at the low end to $100 billion
short of what is needed at the high end. Early in the year, much of the discussion was
shaped by a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
entitled Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the Next Millennium,² which calculated
that procurement budgets would have to average $164 billion per year (in FY2000

² Daniel Goure and Jeffrey M. Ranney, Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New
Millennium (Washington: CSIS, 1999). The CSIS study was the subject of a hearing before
the House Armed Services Committee on February 8, and prepared remarks are available at
the Committee website: [http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/2000.html].

prices) over the next decade to replace the weapons in the current inventory with
more advanced versions as systems reach the ends of their planned service lives.
The CSIS study made a number of assumptions that have been questioned. Not
all parts of the weapons stock will be replaced any time soon (strategic nuclear
missiles and bombers, for example, are not projected to be upgraded in the foreseeable
future, and some will be retired if there is a START III agreement); Army tanks may
be replaced some time after 2010, but possibly not with similar types of weapons;
costs of tactical aircraft and of Navy ships may be unlikely to grow as fast in the
future as CSIS assumes, since the services will be required to reduce weapons
performance if necessary to stay within budget constraints; modern precision
munitions ought to be able to replace older ones on much less than a one-for-one
basis, and many of the newer munitions are much cheaper than older ones; and many
weapons may simply be kept in the inventory much longer than nominal service life
estimates call for, perhaps with upgrades that are less costly than buying new systems.
Several less extreme estimates of required procurement levels, however, still
show a shortfall of some magnitude. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments calculated that the Administration’s procurement program would cost³
about $80 billion a year (in FY1999 prices) by the later part of the decade. The
Congressional Budget Office testified in 1999 that it would cost about $90 billion a
year (also in FY1999 prices) to sustain a “steady state” procurement rate – i.e., a rate
at which enough major weapons would be bought every year to maintain roughly the
current number of weapons in the stock, on the assumption that parts of the force will
be allowed to grow older than has historically been the goal.⁴ Most recently, CBO
completed a broader study of what it called a “steady state” budget – i.e., the amount
needed over the long term to maintain a force of the current size and composition.⁵
CBO estimates that a “steady state” budget over the next 15 years would have to
average about $340 billion a year, in FY2000 prices, of which, as CBO calculated a
year earlier, about $90 billion a year would be for procurement.
For its part, the Defense Department has acknowledged that procurement
budgets may have to grow further in the future, but senior civilian officials have
disputed the various projections by outside analysts. In congressional testimony in
February 2000, Secretary of Defense Cohen stipulated that procurement budgets will
have to grow substantially beyond $70 billion a year in the period after FY2008, when
several planned weapons programs are scheduled to begin full scale production. But

³ See Steven Kosiak and Elizabeth Heeter, “Cost of Defense Plan Could Exceed Available
Funding by $26 Billion a Year Over Long Run,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, April 2, 1998. Available electronically at [http://www.csbaonline.org].
⁴ Lane Pierrot, Senior Analyst, National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office,
Statement on Aging Military Equipment before the Subcommittee on Military Procurement
Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1999. Available
electronically at
[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1096&from=3&sequence=0].
⁵ Congressional Budget Office, Budgeting for Defense: Maintaining Today’s Forces,
September 2000. Available electronically at
[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2398&sequence=0&from=7].

in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 21, DOD
Comptroller William Lynn insisted that the CBO overstates requirements because it
assumes a one-for-one replacement of current generation weapons with like systems⁶
in the future, which is not likely given efforts to transform the force.
A corollary issue concerns whether it will be possible to increase funding for
weapons procurement over the next several years without a substantial increase in
overall defense spending. The Clinton Administration assumes that spending on
operation and maintenance (O&M) will level off over the next several years and that
savings from improved efficiency will be allocated to weapons procurement.
Historically, however, projected O&M savings have seldom materialized, and O&M
costs have continued to grow from year to year. It remains possible that increased
procurement spending could be financed by reducing the size of the force. For the
present, however, each of the military services has complained that it is being
overstretched by the demands of the post-Cold War international environment –
debate has focused on whether and how much to increase selected elements of the
force, rather than on where to make cuts.
Military Service “Unfunded Priorities Lists”
For the past several years, the military services have submitted to the
congressional defense committees lists of programs that would be candidates for any
additional funds made available. These lists have substantially guided congressional
additions to the defense budget. In 2000, the services submitted “unfunded priorities
lists” amounting to more than $16 billion in FY2001 and well over $80 billion in the
FY2001-2005 period – the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization submitted its own
list. As in the past, priorities were about evenly divided between readiness-related
accounts and weapons programs.
The FY2001 congressional budget resolution approved by the House on March
23, 2000, provided only $1 billion more for national defense than the Administration
requested, which would not leave much room for additions to service budgets later
in the process. The House approved $4 billion more for defense as part of the
FY2000 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 3908, however. All of the extra $4
billion was made available through September 30, 2001, so it would represent, in
effect, an addition to the FY2001 defense budget. Later, the Senate added $4 billion
to its version of the FY2001 budget resolution. These amounts, together with other
measures appropriators took subsequently, provided more room for Congress to add
funds for major weapons programs.
Some of the items on service unfunded priorities lists have been particular
matters of discussion in Congress. The Army, for example, included proposals to
restore funds for programs that were trimmed in order to provide money for the
medium-weight force, including Wolverine and Grizzly. The Air Force included a
proposal to restore funds for the Airborne Laser, a program that has historically been
a matter of congressional interest.

⁶ Statement of William J. Lynn before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee
on Military Procurement, September 21, 2000.

Key Issues in Congress
Several key issues emerged in Congress over the course of the FY2001 defense
debate, including several matters that carried over from debates in recent years.
The Level of Defense Spending
The Administration requested $305.4 billion in new budget authority for national
defense programs – an amount reestimated by CBO to total $305.3 billion. Of this
total, $284.5 billion was requested in the defense appropriations bill. In initial
committee action on the congressional budget resolution, neither the House nor the
Senate appeared inclined to add much to the Administration request – instead, the
priority in both chambers was to limit total discretionary spending to something less
that a freeze with growth for inflation. The original House-passed budget resolution
provided $306.3 billion in budget authority for national defense, just $1 billion more
than the request. The Senate Budget Committee recommended a level of $305.8
billion, $500 million above the request.
Pressure from defense advocates to provide more for defense was growing in
both chambers, however. The House responded by adding $4 billion for defense to
the pending supplemental appropriations bill – in effect an addition to the FY2001
funding level. Subsequently, the Senate agreed to an amendment to the budget
resolution to increase the FY2001 level by $4 billion, to $309.8 billion. The
conference agreement provides $309.9 billion, $4.6 billion above the Administration
request. See Table A6 in the Appendix for detailed figures through FY2005.
The $4.6 billion added to the Administration request allowed Congress some
room, at least, to provide funds for selected programs of special interest. The
conference agreement also included a provision that establishes a point of order in the
Senate against measures that would exceed specified levels of funding for defense and
for non-defense discretionary spending – in effect reestablishing so-called “fire-walls”
between defense and non-defense appropriations. In the end, this provision was, in
effect, moot, because Congress later lifted caps on discretionary spending to
accommodate both defense and non-defense increases.
Congressional Action: In the past two years, the appropriations committees used
a number of devices to increase defense spending substantially while formally
adhering to caps on total discretionary spending. In final action on FY1999
appropriations bills, for example, appropriators included in the FY1999 Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 105-277, about $21 billion in emergency
supplemental appropriations, of which $8.3 billion was for the Department of
Defense. Last year, in action on FY2000 bills, appropriators took several steps
to provide additional funds for defense and non-defense programs, including (1)
providing $1.8 billion in funding for FY2000 pay raises as emergency
appropriations in an FY1999 supplemental appropriations bill; (2) moving the
last pay day of the fiscal year for military personnel into FY2001; and (3)
designating $7.2 billion in the FY2000 defense appropriations bill as emergency
funding.

This year, appropriators have taken some similar steps. As noted above, the
House added $4 billion in emergency defense funds to the FY2000 supplemental
appropriations bill, H.R. 3908, all of which was made available through
FY2001 – in effect, an addition to the FY2001 defense budget. The conference
agreement on the supplemental (which is included in H.R. 4425, the FY2001
military construction appropriations bill), includes $1.8 billion of that amount
along with some additional funds – see Table A8 in the Appendix for a detailed
account of all DOD funds in the supplemental. The conference agreement on the
supplemental also moves the pay date for military personnel back into FY2000,
thus freeing up additional outlays within the FY2001 discretionary spending
caps. Senator Gramm objected to this step and some other related provisions
in the supplemental and insisted that they be reversed. This held up final Senate
action on the FY2001 defense appropriations bill.
The conference agreement on the FY2001 defense appropriations bill also
includes additional measures to squeeze extra money into the budget without
formally violating spending caps. In particular, the bill provides $1,779 million
in emergency FY2000 appropriations. Of this amount, $1.1 billion is for the
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund that provides money for
operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Southwest Asia and elsewhere, and the remaining
$679 million is mainly for programs that were in the House-passed version of the
FY2000 supplemental but that were removed in conference. The bill also
includes a general provision that eliminates $1.1 billion in FY2001 funds for the
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. So, in effect, the bill provides
FY2001 money for contingency operations as in the form of FY2000 emergency
appropriations. If the FY2000 emergency funding is not counted as part of the
FY2001 appropriations bill, the conference agreement provides $3.3 billion more
for DOD than the Administration requested. If supplemental funding is counted,
the bill provides an increase of $5.1 billion. Table 3 provides an overview of the
bill by title.
Later, however, Congress made an across-the-board cut of 0.22% in all FY2001
discretionary appropriations, including defense, in H.R. 4577, the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill that became a vehicle for several other
appropriations measures at the end of the session. The across-the-board cut
exempted funding for military personnel. In all, the defense reduction amounts
to $521 million according to CBO estimates. H.R. 4577 also provided some
additional FY2001 funds for defense programs. The major defense additions
are $150 million to repair bomb damage to the USS Cole, $100 million for
classified programs in funded through the Overseas Contingency Operations
Transfer Fund, and $43.5 million for military construction programs. The bill
also includes a measure to facilitate planning for expansion of the Army’s
National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. Table 4 provides an estimate
of total FY2001 funding for the National Defense Budget Function, including
amounts provided in H.R. 4577.

Table 3: FY2001 Defense Appropriations, Congressional Action by Title
(thousands of dollars)
^House^Senate^Conference^{Change to}
^Request^Approp.^Approp.^Approp.^Request
^{Title I - Military Personnel}^75,801,666^75,904,216^75,817,487^75,847,740^+46,074
^{Title II - Operation and Maintenance}^96,280,113^97,507,228^96,720,882^96,889,774^+609,661
^{(By transfer)}^150,000^150,000^150,000^150,000⁰
^{Title III - Procurement /a/}^59,236,234^61,558,679^57,896,122^59,232,846^-3,388
^{Title IV - RDT&E}^37,873,184^40,170,230^39,597,489^41,359,605^+3,486,421
^{Title V - Revolving & Management Funds}^1,304,434^1,316,934^4,195,357^4,157,857^+2,853,423
^{Title VI - Other Programs /b/}^13,587,774^14,029,874^14,190,824^14,114,424^+526,650
^{Title VII - Related agencies}^385,581^472,131^460,281^431,581^+46,000
^{Title VIII - General provisions}^32,000^(2,446,492)^(1,247,942)^(4,227,773)^-4,259,773
^{Total, Department of Defense}^284,500,986^288,512,800^287,630,500^287,806,054^+3,305,068
^{FY2000 Supplemental Funds}⁰⁰⁰^1,779,000^+1,779,000
^{Total Funding Provided}^284,500,986^288,512,800^287,630,500^289,585,054^+5,084,068
^Sources:^{H.Rept. 106-754, House Appropriations Committee.}
^a.^{Senate and Conference levels for procurement do not include C-17 procurement, which was provided instead in Title V,}
^Revolving^&^Management^Funds^–^the^Senate^provided^{$2,478,723,000}^and^the^Conference^agreement^provides^$2,428,723.
^When^C-17^funding^is^{included, the appropriations conference agreement provides about}^$2.5^billion^more^than^requested
^{for weapons procurement.}
^b.^{Includes Defense Health Program, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, Drug Interdiction, and Office of the Inspector General.}
Table 4: FY2001 National Defense Funding by Appropriations Bill
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
EnactedChange
RequestAppropriationsto Request
DOD Appropriations284,501287,806+3,305
Military Construction Appropriations8,0348,834+800
Energy& Water Appropriations13,08413,657+573
Other Appropriations8961,132+236
Offsetting Receipts-1,202-1,230-28
Omnibus Appropriations Supplementals296+296
Omnibus Appropriations 0.22% Cut-521-521
Total, Regular Appropriations305,313309,974+4,661
^Sources:^CRS^based^on^{appropriations}^tables^from^Hou^{se Appropriations Committee in the}^C^ongressional
^Record^{and Congressional Budget Office estimates.}
Defense Health Care
Last year, the Administration requested an extensive set of improvements in
military pay and benefits, and Congress responded by approving a somewhat more
generous package. This year, Administration officials focused on fixing perceived
shortcomings in defense health care, and Congress again considered some more
expansive alternatives. Two inter-related sets of issues have been particular matters

of attention: (1) adjustments in the “TRICARE” program of health benefits for
military dependents and (2) military retiree health care.
The Administration supported two TRICARE reform measures, one to eliminate
co-payments for families enrolled in the TRICARE HMO program, called TRICARE
Prime, and another to extend a managed care option, called TRICARE Prime Remote,
to family members of military personnel serving more than 50 miles from a military
base. The Administration did not formally propose any changes in medical programs
for military retirees, though the Joint Chiefs and other senior Defense Department
officials informally supported at least two measures. One is to extend nationally a test
program, called TRICARE Senior Prime, which provides HMO-type coverage to
retirees with Medicare paying part of the cost for those eligible. A second is to
provide mail-order pharmacy benefits and Medigap coverage to retirees over age 64
where TRICARE Senior Prime is not available. A number of demonstration projects
to test alternative ways of providing retiree health care are ongoing.⁷
In Congress, several measures to reform defense health care programs were
proposed.⁸ The Senate-passed version of the annual defense authorization bill
included a guarantee that the Defense Department will provide health care for life to
military retirees. (For a discussion of current military medical programs and of some
alternatives see CRS Issue Brief IB93103, Military Medical Care Services: Questions
and Answers, by Richard A. Best; CRS Report 98-1006, Military Health Care: The
Issue of “Promised” Benefits, by David Burrelli; and U.S. General Accounting
Office, Statement of Stephen P. Backhus on “Defense Health Care: Observations on
Proposed Benefit Expansion and Overcoming TRICARE Obstacles” before the House
Armed Services Committee Military Personnel Subcommittee, GAO Report T-
HEHS/NSIAD-00-129, March 15, 2000.)
Congressional Action: The conference agreement on the congressional budget
resolution included a section that reserved funds for a possible increase in
military retiree health benefits. The amount available, however, was limited to
$50 million in FY2001 and $400 million over the FY2001-2005 period. This
amount was not enough to cover a substantial expansion of retiree health care
benefits. In its version of the defense authorization bill, however, the Senate
approved a guarantee that DOD would provide care benefits to all retirees. This
was a key issue in the authorization conference.
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) version of the defense
authorization approved expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote, made some
administrative changes in TRICARE, and added some other benefits for
TRICARE participants, including a lower limit on catastrophic costs and
payment of some travel expenses. On retiree health care, the HASC bill
extended current demonstration programs, established a TRICARE Senior

⁷ For an excellent overview by DOD officials, see Hon. Rudy DeLeon, et al., “The Military
Health System: A Joint Overview Statement,” testimony before the House Armed Services
Committee, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, March 15, 2000.
⁸ The Congressional Budget Office has recently prepared cost estimates of $8-10 billion per
year by FY2005 for three similar bills – H.R. 2966, H.R. 3573, and S. 2003.

pharmacy program, and recommended an independent panel to propose a
“roadmap” for retiree health care that would establish a permanent benefit by
FY2004. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of the
authorization also extended TRICARE Remote, and it established an extensive
pharmacy benefit for all retirees, including those eligible for Medicare, with no
enrollment fee or deductible.
In floor action on June 7, the Senate approved an amendment to the
authorization bill by Senator Warner that would eliminate a provision in current
law that makes military retirees eligible for Medicare – i.e., all those over age 64
– ineligible for military medical care. The provision would take effect on
October 1, 2001. In effect, this is a guarantee that the Defense Department will
provide full health coverage for life to retirees. Because this measure would
exceed limits on mandatory spending if extended beyond the end of FY2004,
Senator Warner added a provision that would terminate the program after then –
but his intention clearly was that the program, if finally approved by Congress,
would continue, with an adjustment in caps on mandatory spending being made
to extend it permanently. The Warner amendment also extended the TRICARE
Senior Prime demonstration program.
The authorization conference agreement makes permanent the guarantees
provided by the Warner amendment in the Senate bill, and it establishes a
separate trust fund from which costs of the program will be paid. Once the fund
is established, the Defense Department will be required to pay into the fund the
actuarily determined cost of future benefits for current personnel. The
conference agreement also provides a nation-wide pharmacy benefit for all
beneficiaries, extends TRICARE remote, eliminates co-payments for TRICARE
Prime for active duty family members, and extends the TRICARE Senior Prime
demonstration program.
The budget effects of increased health care benefits are complex and have been
a matter of some confusion, in part because some costs for military retiree health
care benefits that the Defense Department now pays out of annual appropriations
will be shifted to a new, “mandatory” account. Table 5 provides the most
recent, though still preliminary, Congressional Budget Office estimate of the
budgetary impact of the retiree health care provisions in the conference
agreement. To summarize:
(1) Under current law, the Defense Department is projected to provide $24.8
billion in benefits to military retirees over the ten years from FY2001 through
FY2010, all of which would have to be absorbed within total discretionary
appropriations for DOD.
(2) The authorization conference agreement provides an additional $40.4 billion
of benefits for retirees, of which $200 million in FY2001 and $1.7 billion in
FY2002 will be paid for through regular, “discretionary” DOD appropriations.
(3) The remaining $38.5 billion in additional benefits, plus $21.4 billion of the
amount that DOD is already providing to retirees (i.e., a total of $59.9 billion),
will be provided for retiree benefits as “mandatory” spending, in small part

through Medicare, but mainly, beginning in FY2003, through a new
“Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund.”
(4) Also beginning in FY2003, the Defense Department will make payments to
the new fund to reflect the cost of future benefits for current uniformed
personnel. Through FY2010, these payments will total $29.0 billion. This
funding mechanism is known as “accrual accounting,” and it has been used since
FY1985 to finance military retirement costs and has long been used to finance
federal civilian retirement.
(5) In all, “discretionary” DOD appropriations will pay $1.9 billion more than
under current law in FY2001-2002 for increased retirement benefits, $29.0
billion more for health care retirement benefits accrual from FY2003-2010, but
$21.4 billion less from FY2003-2010 to reflect the shift of spending on health
care for retirees beginning in FY2003 to mandatory accounts, for a net increase
of $9.5 billion in discretionary funding over FY2001-2010.
(6) Total mandatory spending in the federal budget will increase by $59.9 billion
from FY2001 through FY2010 – an amount that has not been offset and that
therefore triggered a point of order against the measure in the Senate under
current “pay-as-you-go” budget rules – the Senate waived the point of order by
a vote of 84-9.
For its part, the appropriations conference agreement provides $963 million
above the request for the Defense Health Program – enough, appropriators
explained, to implement expanded pharmacy access for retirees as approved in
the House-passed version of the defense authorization bill. The $200 million
cost in FY2001 of the health care provisions in the authorization conference
agreement was not provided in the appropriations bill, but it may be financed in
a number of ways – it could simply be absorbed within the Defense Health Care
program, financed through reprogramming of other DOD funds, or paid for by
later supplemental appropriations by Congress.

CRS-17
Table 5: Estimated Costs of Military Retiree Health Care Provisions
(current year dollars in millions)
TotalTotal
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2001-05 FY2001-10
0 0 3,160 3,428 3,700 3,971 4,248 4,535 4,848 5,194 10,288 33,084
0 0 2,039 2,209 2,386 2,561 2,744 2,932 3,142 3,373 6,634 21,386
0 0 204 221 239 256 274 293 314 337 664 2,138
3 26 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 77 185 526
3 26 5,451 5,910 6,381 6,848 7,330 7,828 8,376 8,981 17,771 57,134
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL30505} 0 116 252 273 298 311 332 354 377 402 939 2,71520 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 28
^g/w 20 124 252 273 298 311 332 354 377 402 967 2,743
^s^.or 23 150 5,703 6,183 6,679 7,159 7,662 8,182 8,753 9,383 18,738 59,877
^le^ak
^://wiki 1,709 1,664 2,039 2,209 2,386 2,561 2,744 2,932 3,142 3,373 10,007 24,759
^h^ttp
0 0 -2,039 -2,209 -2,386 -2,561 -2,744 -2,932 -3,142 -3,373 -6,634 -21,386
0 0 3,184 3,414 3,519 3,612 3,698 3,777 3,867 3,966 10,117 29,037
200 1,688 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,888 1,888
+200 +1,688 +1,145 +1,205 +1,133 +1,051 +954 +845 +725 +593 +5,371 +9,539
1,909 3,352 3,184 3,414 3,519 3,612 3,698 3,777 3,867 3,966 15,378 34,298
1,932 3,502 5,703 6,183 6,679 7,159 7,662 8,182 8,753 9,383 23,999 65,138
1,709 1,664 2,039 2,209 2,386 2,561 2,744 2,932 3,142 3,373 10,007 24,759
223 1,838 3,664 3,974 4,293 4,598 4,918 5,250 5,611 6,010 13,992 40,379
Source: Congressional Budget Office Draft Estimates.
*Notes: Non-DOD uniformed personnel include Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. DOD will
make payments to the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to reflect the cost of future benefits for current uniformed personnel.

National Missile Defense (NMD)
In 1996, the Clinton Administration announced a revised NMD development
program, know as the “three-plus-three” plan. Under the plan, development and
testing of a missile defense system would proceed for three years, after which a
decision would be made on whether to deploy a system. Then, if a decision was made
to go ahead, the system could begin operation another three years later. As the plan
evolved, the so-called “Deployment Readiness Review” (DRR) was scheduled for
June 2000, and the potential date for an initial deployment was pushed back to
calendar year 2005. This year’s debate over national missile defense focused mainly
on whether the President should go ahead with the formal DRR as scheduled or
whether, in view of a series of test failures, the President should leave a decision to
his successor. After a test failure in January and some delays in other parts of the
program, the DRR was pushed back to late in the summer. Another test failure on
July 7 further intensified the debate. Finally, on September 1, 2000, President Clinton
announced that he would leave a decision on the program to his successor.
Early in the year, much of the discussion in Congress was shaped by two official
reports that raised serious questions about the pace of the NMD development
program. The “National Missile Defense Review,” a panel study headed by former
Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welch, warned last November that the NMD
program continues to be a high risk development effort and that additional delays
could further compress the decision-making schedule. The Welch panel did not
recommended deferring the DRR, however. The annual report of the Pentagon’s
Director of operational testing, released in February, was more critical, saying that the
NMD program was being driven by an “artificial decision point.” More recently, a
bitter debate arose about the adequacy of planned tests of the planned NMD system’s
ability to discriminate between warheads and decoys. MIT scientist Ted Postol and
others have argued that the test program has been deliberately “dumbed down” to
avoid challenging tests of discrimination.
The international reaction to the U.S. NMD deployment plan was also a matter
of debate. The Administration has pursued negotiations with Russia on changes in
the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that would be necessary to permit a
deployment without abrogating the agreement. The new Russian leadership has
continued to oppose deployment, however, and some congressional leaders have
promised to resist any measure that would extend the ABM Treaty. The
Administration has also had a hard time persuading key allies of the wisdom of an
NMD deployment. (For an overview of these and other NMD issues, see CRS Issue
Brief IB10034, National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by Steven A. Hildreth
and Amy F. Woolf.)
The cost of the system also remains an issue. A recent review by the
Congressional Budget Office projects somewhat higher deployment costs than the
Administration has estimated. CBO estimates that the initial, limited system that the
Administration is planning would cost about $30 billion, in FY2000 prices, to deploy
and operate through FY2015 – a comparable Administration cost estimate, according
to CBO, is about $26 billion. CBO also estimates that the expanded “Capability 2"
and “Capability 3" systems that the Administration is planning would increase total
costs to about $49 billion through FY2015, with an additional $10-11 billion needed

for a space-based infrared sensor system that has other uses as well – there is no
comparable Administration projection.⁹
Congressional Action: HASC added $85 million for NMD risk reduction
measures, and SASC added $129 million. HASC also included a measure to
transfer management of the Space-Based Infrared System-Low (SBIRS-Low)
from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This reflects
ongoing criticism of Air Force management of the program by some missile
defense advocates. The House Appropriations Committee did not increase
NMD funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee added $129 million for
NMD risk reduction and another $10 million to accelerated radar development.
The conference agreement on the appropriations bill provides $135 million more
for risk reduction. The authorization conference agreement provides $129
million for risk reduction.
This year’s key congressional debate about NMD, however, concerned the
adequacy of the test program rather than money. On July 13, by a 52-48 vote,
the Senate rejected an amendment to the defense authorization bill offered by
Senator Durbin that would have required operationally realistic testing against
countermeasures and an independent assessment of such testing by the Welch
panel.
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Programs
Last year, Congress rejected an Administration proposal to combine funding for
the land-based Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and the Navy
Theater-Wide (NTW) program, and the status of the two programs was an issue in
Congress again this year. Under the current Administration plan, THAAD will be
pursued first, followed by NTW, unless the THAAD program experiences unexpected
problems. Congress has traditionally supported an acceleration of the NTW program,
however, and some Navy officials claim that the program is ready to proceed more
rapidly than the Administration is planning. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO) officials have proposed a program to accelerate NTW that would cost an
additional $2.2 billion over the next five years.
Other TMD programs have also been a focus of attention, including the Medium
Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3
(PAC-3) system. MEADS is a cooperative program with allies, and some
congressional committees have been doubtful about the long-term affordability of the
program. Costs of PAC-3 have increased dramatically, and DOD is trying to
restructure the program to reduce the price, a matter of some interest in Congress.
See Table A4, in the appendix, for a complete list of TMD and NMD programs and
requested funding. Funding for the Air Force Airborne Laser (ABL) program was
also be an issue. (For an overview of TMD programs see CRS Issue Brief IB98028,
Theater Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by Robert D. Shuey. For an overview

⁹ Congressional Budget Office, “Budgetary and Technical Implications of the
Administration’s Plan for National Missile Defense,” April 2000.

of the ABL program, see CRS Report RL30185, The Airborne Laser Anti-Missile
Program, by Michael E. Davey and Frederick Martin.)
Congressional action: HASC, SASC, the House Appropriations Committee
(HAC), and the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) all added money for
the Navy Theater Wide program, though in varying amounts – HASC added $25
million, SASC and SAC $60 million, and HAC $130 million. The appropriations
conference agreement adds $80 million, as does the authorization conference
agreement. HASC, SASC, and SAC also added funds for the Airborne Laser to
restore the program to about the level planned last year, but HAC added no
funds. The appropriations conference agreement adds $85 million, and a general
provision specifically earmarks $233.6 million, the total provided, for the ABL;
the authorization conference also adds $85 million for ABL. HASC also
approved an amendment offered by Representative Curt Weldon to transfer
management of the ABL to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The
appropriations conference agreement provides ABL funding to the Air Force.
On a potentially controversial related program, SASC added $41 million for
Army space control technology development, including the Kinetic Energy Anti-
Satellite program. HASC, SASC, HAC, and SAC all added money for laser
R&D programs. On MEADS, the appropriations conference agreement follows
the House bill, which cut funding by $10 million – Administration officials
lobbied against the cut, warning that it would disrupt administration of the
program and endanger allied funding.
C-17 and C-130 Cargo Aircraft
The Administration requested funds to procure 12 C-17 cargo aircraft in
FY2001, rather than the 15 that had been planned. The hope was that the gap could
be made up by reaching a purchase or lease agreement with Britain for several
aircraft. Congress has added funds for C-130 aircraft in recent years, but this year the
Administration requested funding for 4 aircraft. (For a discussion of the C-17
program, see CRS Issue Brief IB93041, C-17 Cargo Aircraft Program, by
Christopher Bolkcom.)
Congressional Action: HASC and HAC added $76 million to procure one
additional KC-130J aircraft for the Marine Corps. SASC and SAC added $165
million for one additional KC-130J and one additional EC-130J for the Air
Force, and the appropriations conference agreement provides the same amounts.
All of the committees approved continued funding for the C-17, though SAC
proposed establishing a “National Defense Airlift Fund” and provided the C-17
funding in that account rather than in the Air Force Aircraft Procurement
account. SAC intends the new airlift fund to operate like the long-established
National Defense Sealift Fund, to which money to procure and operate sealift
ships is appropriated. HAC made some relatively minor adjustments in the
allocation of C-17 funds. The appropriations conference agreement establishes
the National Defense Airlift fund, as SAC recommended, and provides funding
for C-17 procurement and contractor support in that new account.

F-15 and F-16 Aircraft
The Administration did not request funds to purchase additional F-15 and F-16
aircraft. In the past, Congress has added funds for both aircraft to ensure that
production lines continue. Recently, Lockheed has received a large order for F-16s
from the United Arab Emirates, and sales elsewhere are substantial. Foreign F-15
orders have not been so strong, however, and the production line in St. Louis may
shut down without additional purchases. Under similar conditions, Congress added
funds for 5 aircraft last year.
Congressional action: HASC added funds for two F-15s and three F-16s. HAC
added funds for five F-15s. SASC did not provide funds to procure either
aircraft, while SAC added funds for 6 F-16s. All committees added some money
for aircraft modifications and R&D. The appropriations conference report
provides $400 million to procure five F-15s and $122 million to procure four F-

16s. The authorization conference agreement provides $150 million for two F-

15s and $52 million for two F-16s.

F/A-18E/F, F-22, and Joint Strike Fighter Programs
The big three theater aircraft modernization programs are the Navy F/A-18E/F,
the Air Force F-22, and the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter. The F-22 was a focus
of extensive debate last year. This year, the Administration has requested funds to
procure 10 aircraft, though the status of the testing program remains a matter of
congressional interest. Now the JSF is becoming a focus of particular attention in
Congress as development proceeds. The General Accounting Office has raised
questions about the development schedule, but program managers insist that the¹⁰
schedule is appropriate. This summer, DOD officials reportedly were considering
whether to split orders for the aircraft between Boeing and Lockheed, no matter
which one wins the design competition currently underway, but finally decided not to
split the program. Senator Feingold has continued to raised questions about the F/A-
18E/F program. (For an overview of all three programs and references to other CRS
products, see CRS Issue Brief IB92115, Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for
Congress, by Christopher Bolkcom.)
Congressional action: The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was a focus of
considerable attention in all of the defense committees. The SASC
Subcommittee on Airland Forces initially considered measures that might have
reduced JSF funding if the program continued to experience delays. After
meeting with Secretary Cohen, however, the full committee decided not to
impose any legislative language limiting the program. The committee-approved
bill eliminated $596 million requested for engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) – the final stage in a weapon’s design – and increased
funding for demonstration and validation – the earlier R&D stage – by $424
million. HASC provided requested funding for EMD, but included language

¹⁰ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Development
Schedule Should Be Changed to Reduce Risks, GAO Report T-NSIAD-00-132, March 16,

2000.

requiring the Secretary of Defense to certify that JSF technology is mature
enough to warrant beginning EMD. HAC reduced EMD funding by $300
million and increased demonstration and validation funding by $150 million.
SAC followed the SASC approach, though it provided slightly less money for
demonstration and validation. The appropriations and authorization conference
agreements provide $203 million for EMD, $393 million below the request, and
$486 million for demonstration and validation, $225 million above the request.
Appropriations conferees explained that this simply reflects an acknowledged
delay of three months in beginning the EMD phase. The authorization
conference approved the same shift of funding from EMD to DEM/VAL. (See
Table 6 for a summary of congressional action on JSF funding). On other
programs, HASC reduced requested F/A-18E/F procurement by three aircraft
(from 42 to 39). All of the committees supported F-22 funding as requested,
and SASC included a provision that would raise the legislatively mandated cost
cap on F-22 R&D by 1%. The appropriations and authorization conferences
agreements provide funds for 42 F-18s, as requested, and match the request for
F-22 procurement and R&D. The authorization conference agreement also raises
the cost cap on F-22 R&D by 1.5%.
Table 6: Congressional Action on FY2001 Joint Strike Fighter Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
House Senate Auth. House Senate Approp.
Request Auth. Auth. Conf. Approp. Approp. Conf.
Navy
63800N Dem/Val*131.566 131.566 343.666 243.050 206.556 327.660 243.050
64800N EMD*295.962 295.962 0.000 101.275 145.962 0.000 101.275
Air Force
63800F Dem/Val129.538 144.538 341.638 243.050 204.538 325.632 243.050
64800F EMD299.540 299.540 0.000 101.275 149.540 0.000 101.275
Total
Dem/Val261.104 276.104 685.304 486.100 411.094 653.292 486.100
EMD595.502 595.502 0.000 202.550 295.502 0.000 202.550
Total856.606 871.606 685.304 688.650 706.596 653.292 688.650
Notes: Dem/Val refers to "Demonstration and Validation." EMD refers to "Engineering and Manufacturing
Development."
V-22 “Osprey” Tilt-Rotor Aircraft
The status of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, a system being built mainly for the
Marine Corps, has been a matter of some discussion in the wake of a disastrous
accident on April 8 in which 19 Marines were killed. During the Bush Administration,
Congress resisted efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense – against the
wishes of the Marine Corps – to terminate the program. Subsequently, the Clinton
Administration has continued the development program, and Congress has remained
supportive, occasionally adding money to Administration requests.

Congressional action: None of the committees reduced V-22 funding, except
for a minor reduction by SAC. The appropriations conference report makes no
reduction from the request. The authorization conference also approves planned
procurement.
Shipbuilding Programs
A key issue early this year was whether Congress would continue to provide
funds on an “incremental” basis to purchase LHD-8, a large-deck amphibious ship.
Last year, Congress provided $356 million as a down-payment for the $1.8 billion
ship, but the Administration did not request any money in the FY2001 budget, and
also did not include funds in future Navy budget projections. Later in the year, a key
issue became whether to provide requested funds for two LPD-17-class amphibious
ships. Submarine production was also an issue, with a decision pending on whether
to convert 4 Trident missile submarines into cruise missile carriers, and the Navy
beginning to argue that 68 submarines are needed to fulfil current requirements. (For
a general discussion of attack submarine issues, see CRS Report RL30045, Navy
Attack Submarine Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
O’Rourke.) The Navy has also begun to argue more and more explicitly for an
increase in the overall size of the force beyond the planned 300 ships, and there
continues to be some sentiment on the congressional defense committees to the effect
that planned shipbuilding rates are too low. (For a discussion of shipbuilding issues,
see CRS Report RS20535, Navy Ship Procurement Rate and the Planned Size of the
Navy: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.)
Congressional action: SASC and SAC added $460 million in incremental
funding for LHD-8. SAC also eliminated $1.5 billion buy two LPD-17-class
amphibious ships, complaining that the design is not stable and that costs are
climbing. Instead, SAC provided $179 million in advance procurement for two
ships to be purchased in FY2002 and $285 million for cost growth in the first
four ships that have already been ordered. Both HASC and SASC authorized
a five-year block purchase of New Attack Submarines, reflecting a desire to
ensure adequate funding for the current program to split work between Newport
News Shipbuilding in Virginia and General Dynamics Electric Boat Division in
Connecticut. The appropriations conference agreement provides $460 million
for LHD-8, and, in a major change to the Administration request, it largely
follows the Senate on the LPD-17 – i.e., it eliminates $1.5 billion to procure two
ships and instead provides $560 million only for advance procurement. The
conference report also specifically authorizes continued incremental funding for
LHD-8. The authorization conference agreement also approves $460 million in
incremental funding for LHD-8, but, in contrast to the appropriators, authorizers
approved the full $1.5 billion requested to procure two LPD-17s.
Army “Transformation”
The Army plan to develop a new medium weight force has been a matter of some
scrutiny in congressional hearings. Some legislators have asked whether a lighter,
more deployable force can also possess the firepower and survivability necessary for
higher intensity conflicts. The main questions, however, concern whether planned

programs have been adequately thought through and reviewed, whether the schedule
is achievable, and whether adequate funds are available. Army leaders acknowledge
a shortfall in long-term funding for the program. Some legislators have urged that
funds be restored for programs the Army trimmed in its effort to find money for the
medium weight force.
On an indirectly related issue, Congress has been particularly interested in
helicopter procurement plans. The Comanche scout helicopter continues to be a high
priority for the Army – Congress has, in the past, supported the program in the face
of efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to slow it down, and there remains
some concern that the program may again be slowed by funding constraints.
Congress has also, in the past, supported higher than requested production of
Blackhawk (UH-60) utility helicopters.
Congressional action: HASC and SASC both restored funds for the Army
“Grizzly” and “Wolverine” programs – i.e., programs that were cut to fund the
medium weight force. HAC and SAC restored funds for the Wolverine program
in the FY2001 defense appropriations, and the House added funds for Grizzly
to FY2000 supplemental appropriations. Though it did not revise funding,
SASC expressed concern about potential delays in the Crusader self-propelled
artillery program – an effort to lighten the Crusader is a part of the Army
transformation program. SAC went much further, reducing funding for the
Crusader program from $355 million to $200 million, and instructing that the
program be redirected to develop an entirely new, lighter vehicle compatible
with the Army transformation initiative. On the whole, Congress has proved to
be very supportive of the Army transformation effort. HASC, SASC, and SAC
added some funds for Army transformation-related programs, while HAC added
much more, including $800 million to equip a second brigade with medium-
weight equipment. SASC, however, included a provision that the Army strongly
opposed requiring a side-by-side evaluation of alternative armored vehicles for
the interim medium-weight brigade.
The appropriations conference agreement (1) restores funds for the Wolverine
Heavy Assault Bridge, and another bill provides funds for Grizzly as FY2000
supplemental appropriations; (2) provides the full $355 million requested for
Crusader, but prohibits obligation of the funds until 30 days after DOD submits
an analysis of alternatives to Congress; (3) following HAC, provides $800
million above the request for a second Army medium-weight brigade and
includes other funds to accelerate acquisition of a light-weight armored vehicle;
and (4) adds funds for 8 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and fully funds
Comanche. The authorization conference agreement provides $750 million for
additional procurement and R&D on medium-weight armored vehicles. The
authorization conference also follows SASC, however, in requiring the Army to
carry out a test program to compare currently deployed armored vehicles with
new wheeled vehicles that the Army wants to buy before a third medium weight
brigade can be outfitted. Congressional support for an acceleration of the
Army’s transformation program is perhaps the biggest single story in this year’s
defense debate, though SASC’s insistence that the Army evaluate current
tracked armored vehicles for the medium-weight force may slow the program.

Department of Energy Security
Last year, in the wake of evidence of security lapses at Department of Energy
(DOE) facilities, Congress included in the defense authorization bill a measure
establishing an independent agency, called the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), within DOE to oversee counterintelligence and security.
Though it initially objected to the proposal, the Administration has now selected a
director for the agency. Congress has continued to review implementation of the new
security regime, and DOE security may remain an issue this year. (For a discussion
of nuclear weapons security issues, see CRS Report RL30143, China: Suspected
Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Data, by Shirley A. Kan. For a discussion of
DOE reorganization, see CRS Issue Brief IB10036, Restructuring DOE and Its
Laboratories: Issues in the 106^th Congress, by William C. Boesman.)
Congressional action: HASC imposed some new constraints on DOE funding
under its jurisdiction, pending submission of a detailed program for
implementation of the NNSA. The SASC version of the bill included a separate
title, Title XXXI, that would establish regulations governing the NNSA intended
to ensure the agency’s independence from the Secretary of Energy. Among
other things, provisions would (1) set a specific term for the first head of the
agency, (2) permit the President to dismiss the agency head only for inefficiency,
neglect of duty, or malfeasance, (3) limit the ability of the Secretary of Energy
to reorganize, abolish, alter, consolidate, or discontinue any organizational unit
or component of the NNSA, and (4) prohibit pay of any DOE employee assigned
duties both within NNSA and within the rest of DOE. Several Senators objected
to these restrictions, but subsequent further security breaches at the Los Alamos
lab headed off any challenges on the floor. The authorization conference
agreement includes the Senate-passed provisions with some very slight, technical
revisions.
Cooperative Threat Reduction
The Administration has requested $458 million in the Defense Department for
the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program that provides demilitarization
assistance to states of the former Soviet Union. The Department of Energy budget
also includes almost $200 million for related DOE programs – $150 million for the
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) program, $22.5 million for
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), and $17.5 million for the Nuclear Cities
Initiative (NCI). In the past, Congress has scrutinized the CTR and related programs
closely. Last year, Congress reduced funds for IPP and NCI and prohibited the use
of CTR funds to construct chemical weapons destruction facilities in Russia and
instead provided that funds should be used only to improve the security of chemical
weapons stocks. This year, the Administration is again requesting funds for chemical
weapons destruction facilities. (For an overview, see CRS Report 97-1027, Nunn-
Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues for Congress, by Amy F.
Woolf.)
Congressional action: HASC eliminated $35 million requested for chemical
weapons destruction in Russia, while SASC approved the funding provided

Russia guarantees long-term financing for the program and meets some other
conditions. SASC also imposed some conditions on Nuclear Cities Initiative
funding. SAC directed that $25 million of the funds provided be used continue
a program to dismantle and dispose of Russian nuclear submarines. The
appropriations conference agreement provides $443 million for CTR, and,
following SAC, allocates $25 million for submarines. The conference agreement
also follows the House authorization and eliminates the $35 million requested
for chemical weapons demilitarization. The authorization conference agreement
also approves $443 million for CTR.
Military Operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Colombia, and the Persian
Gulf
In all, the FY2001 budget request includes $4.2 billion for ongoing military
contingency operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf. The $2 billion
included for Kosovo was potentially a matter of some debate. Allied burdensharing
in Kosovo, in particular, has been a contentious issue. (For an extensive discussion,
see CRS Report RL30457, Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan
Colombia, Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and Other
Initiatives, by Larry Nowels, et al.; CRS Issue Brief IB98041, Kosovo and U.S.
Policy, by Steven Woehrel and Julie Kim; CRS Report RL30398, NATO
Burdensharing and Kosovo: A Preliminary Report, by Carl Ek; CRS Issue Brief
IB10027, Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations, by Steven R. Bowman; and
CRS Issue Brief IB94040, Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement, by
Nina Serafino.
Congressional action: In the Senate, FY2000 funding for Kosovo peacekeeping
was added to FY2001 Military Construction bill, and that became the focus
debate over the mission. On May 18, however, the Senate eliminated from the
bill a measure sponsored by Sen. Byrd to require the withdrawal of U.S. troops
from Kosovo after July 1, 2001, unless Congress authorizes continued
deployment. In the House, the issue was addressed in action on the defense
authorization bill. On May 17, the House approved an amendment sponsored
by Representatives Kasich, Shays, Frank, Condit, and Bachus that would require
the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo by April 1, 2001 unless the
President certifies that U.S. allies have met certain burdensharing commitments.
This appears to be a major issue in the authorization conference. All of the
FY2001 defense bills, however, have approved requested funding for
contingency operations in Kosovo and elsewhere. The appropriations
conference agreement provides requested funding, with minor adjustments to
reflect reduced force levels in Bosnia, though $1.1 billion of the total provided
for contingency operations is designated as FY2000 emergency appropriations.
The authorization conference agreement does not include the House-passed
measure that would require troop withdrawals from Kosovo, though it does
include extensive reporting requirements concerning allied burdensharing.
Conferees also warned that Congress may mandate troop withdrawals in the
future if allies fail to meet their commitments.

Navy Live-Fire Testing at Vieques, Puerto Rico
In January, the White House announced an agreement with the government of
Puerto Rico to resolve the issue of Navy live-fire testing on the island of Vieques.
The plan calls for holding a referendum sometime between August 2000 and January
2001 on the future of Navy activities on the island, a $40 million economic
development program for the island, and, depending on the outcome of the
referendum, either transfer of Navy property to the General Services Administration
for cleanup and disposal or an additional $50 million economic development program.
Implementing the President’s plan would require congressional approval of land-
transfer legislation, the initial $40-million funding request for Vieques, and (if the
referendum supports continued training on the island) the additional $50-million
funding request for Vieques. The House Appropriations Committee included $40
million for Vieques in its version of the FY2000 supplemental appropriations bill
(H.R. 3908). (For a further discussion see CRS Report RS20458, Vieques, Puerto
Rico Naval Training Range: Background Information and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke.)
Congressional action: SASC supported most elements of the Administration’s
agreement on Vieques, but HASC did not. SASC authorized both the $40
million development program and, with conditions, the additional $50 million,
though it did address a part of the agreement transferring land on the opposite
side of the island from the firing range to Puerto Rico. HASC approved the
requested $40 million, but not the additional $50 million, and it included a
provision prohibiting transfer of land on the opposite side of the island if the
referendum rejects continued live-fire training. On May 18, however, the full
House approved an amendment by Representative Skelton repealing the HASC
provisions. The authorization conference agreement includes measures to
implement the Administration plan.
Social Issues
Social issues, such as abortion, gays in the military, and the role of women in the
armed forces, have frequently been matters of debate in defense funding bills in recent
years. Two years ago, gender integrated training was a major issue. Last year
Congress debated whether to lift a ban on abortions in military hospitals overseas.
This year, gays in the military is again a focus of attention, though there has not been
any specific proposal in Congress to revise current policy.
Congressional action: The HASC military personnel subcommittee failed, on a
tie vote, to approve an amendment by Representative Sanchez to remove the
prohibition on abortions in military hospitals abroad, and the full committee later
rejected the same amendment. On May 18, the full House rejected a similar
Sanchez amendment. HASC also approved an amendment offered by
Representative Bartlett to require Congress to be notified 120 days before
implementation of any plan to allow women to serve on Navy submarines. On
June 20, the Senate tabled, by a 50-49 vote, an amendment to the authorization
bill by Senators Murray and Snowe to repeal the restriction on use of military
facilities for privately funded abortions.

Base Closures
Secretary of Defense Cohen has again urged Congress to approve more rounds
of military base closures, now starting in 2003. Officials argue that cuts in the defense
infrastructure have lagged far behind cuts in the size of the force and that funding for
major weapons programs in the future depends on improving efficiency over the next
few years. For the past three years, Congress has rejected additional base closure
rounds. In part, opponents have complained that the White House politicized the base
closure process in 1995 when it acted to keep aircraft maintenance facilities in Texas
and California open as privately run operations after the Base Closure Commission
had recommended their closure. (For a discussion, see CRS Report RL30440,
Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand?, by David E. Lockwood; and CRS
Report RL30051, Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by David E.
Lockwood.)
Congressional action: Neither SASC nor HASC addressed the issue of base
closures, and on June 7, by a vote of 35-63, the Senate rejected an amendment
to the authorization bill by Senators Levin and McCain to authorize additional
closure rounds in 2003 and 2005.
China Policy
In recent years, must-pass defense bills, particularly the defense authorization,
have been used as a vehicle for measures regarding technology transfers to China and
other China policy matters, and it was widely expected that security relations with
Taiwan, in particular, could be a matter of debate this year. Earlier this year, the
House approved H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, that would
require expanded U.S.-Taiwan military exchanges and establishment of direct military
communications and that would mandate annual reports on the security situation in
the Taiwan Strait. The bill as passed did not mandate sale of particular kinds of
weapons to Taiwan, but China reacted very negatively to the measure and warned that
it would “respond strongly” if advanced weapons were sold to Taiwan. The Senate
has not yet taken up its version of the bill, S. 693. On February 21, the PRC
government issued a White Paper, “The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue,”
which offered a mix of conciliatory gestures and a new ominous-sounding threat that
if Taiwan authorities indefinitely delay cross-Strait talks, this may prompt use of
force. (For an overview, see CRS Issue Brief IB98018, China-U.S. Relations, by
Kerry B. Dumbaugh; CRS Issue Brief IB98034, Taiwan: Recent Developments and
U.S. Policy Choices, by Kerry B. Dumbaugh; CRS Report RS20365, Taiwan:
Annual Arms Sales Process, by Shirley A. Kan; CRS Report RS20483, Taiwan:
Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, by Shirley A. Kan; CRS Report RL30341,
China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy – Key Statements from
Washington, Beijing, and Taipei, by Shirley A. Kan; and CRS Report RL30379,
Missile Defense Options for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan: A Review of the
Defense Department Report to Congress, by Robert D. Shuey, Shirley A. Kan, and
Mark Christofferson.)
Congressional action: HASC urged the Administration to establish a Center for
the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense University, as was

authorized last year. But China policy in general was not addressed this year’s
defense bills.
The Revolution in Military Affairs/Unmanned Combat Systems
All of the military services have been pursuing changes in military technology
that have been loosely described as elements of a “revolution in military affairs.”
Periodically, some Members of Congress have urged greater efforts to pursue radical
changes in weaponry and in military doctrine, but with few specific proposals. This
year, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner has joined the
discussion, urging the services to pursue development of unmanned systems, both for
ground and for aerial combat. In statements to the press, Senator Warner has said
that he plans to set a goal of having one-third of all deep strike aircraft unmanned by
2010 and one-third of all ground combat vehicles unmanned by 2015.¹¹ This would
require dramatic changes in current military R&D programs.
Congressional action: SASC cited its interest in harnessing new technologies as
a rationale for several measures, including increased funding for unmanned aerial
vehicles for surveillance and related missions (though not for combat), increased
funding for counter-terrorism and protection against cyber-warfare, an increased
R&D funding. SASC also included a provision requiring the Defense
Department to develop a plan aimed at meeting the ambitious goals for use of
unmanned combat systems that Senator Warner laid out – i.e., that unmanned
systems will constitute one-third of deep-strike aircraft by 2010 and one-third
of ground combat vehicles by 2015. The authorization conference agreement
approves funds for a number of programs designed to strengthen domestic
defenses against terrorism, biological weapons, and information warfare and to
encourage development of advanced technologies. The conference agreement
also includes the Senate provisions on the use of unmanned combat systems.
Legislation
Budget Resolution
H.Con.Res. 290 (Kasich)
A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United
States government for FY2001, revising the congressional budget for the United
States government for FY2000, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Ordered to be reported, March 14, and
reported by the House Budget Committee (H.Rept. 106-530), March 20, 2000.
Approved by the House, with amendments, (211-207), March 23, 2000. Taken up by
the Senate, which substituted the text of S.Con.Res. 101, and passed by the Senate
(51-45), April 7, 2000. Conference report filed (H.Rept. 106-577), April 12, 2000.

¹¹ See “Warner Pledges to Increase Defense Budget in Coming Years,” Inside the Pentagon,
February 10, 2000.

Conference report approved by the House (220-208) and the Senate (50-48), April

13, 2000.

S.Con.Res. 101 (Domenici)
An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the
United States government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Ordered favorably
reported by the Senate Budget Committee, March 30, 2000. Considered by the
Senate, April 4-7, 2000. Incorporated as a substitute amendment into H.Con.Res.

290 and approved by the Senate (51-45), April 7, 2000.

Supplemental Appropriations
H.R. 3908 (C.W. Bill Young)
An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Reported by the House
Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 106-521), March 14, 2000. Approved by the
House of Representatives, with amendments (263-146), March 30, 2000.
Defense Authorization
H.R. 4205 (Spence)
A bill to authorize appropriations for FY2001 for military activities of the
Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for FY2001, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the Armed
Services Committee, May 10, 2000. Reported by the Armed Services Committee
(H.Rept. 106-616), May 12, 2000. Considered by the full House, May 17-18, 2000.
Approved by the House (353-63), May 18, 2000. Senate took up H.R. 4205,
substituted the text of S. 2549, as amended, and approved H.R. 4205 (97-3), July 13,

2000. Conference agreement ordered to be reported (H.Rept. 106-945), October 6,

2000. Conference report approved by the House (382-31), October 11, 2000.

Conference report approved by the Senate (90-3), October 12, 2000. President
signed the bill into law (P.L. 106-398), October 30, 2000.
S. 2549 (Warner)
A bill to authorize appropriations for FY2001 for military activities of the
Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for FY2001, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the Armed
Services Committee, May 9, 2000. Reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee (S.Rept. 106-292), May 12, 2000. Considered by the Senate, June 6, 7,

8, 14, 19, 20, and 30, and July 12 and 13, 2000. Senate took up H.R. 4205,

substituted the text of S. 2549, and approved H.R. 4205 (97-3), July 13, 2000.
Defense Appropriations
H.R. 4576 (Jerry Lewis)
Making appropriations for FY2001 for the Department of Defense and for other
purposes. Approved by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, May 10,
2000. Approved and ordered reported by the House Appropriations Committee
(H.Rept. 106-644), May 25, 2000. Approved by the House (367-58), June 7, 2000.

Senate took up H.R. 4576, deleted all after the enacting clause and substituted the
text of S. 2593 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, June 8, 2000.
Considered by the full Senate June 8-9, and 12-13, 2000. Approved by the Senate
(95-3), June 13, 2000. Conference agreement filed (H.Rept. 106-754), July 17, 2000;
approved by the House (367-58), July 19, 2000; approved by the Senate (91-9),
July 27, 2000. President signed the bill into law (P.L. 106-259), August 9, 2000.
S. 2593 (Stevens)
An original bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. Reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept 106-298), May 18, 2000. Senate
substituted the text of S. 2593 into H.R. 4576, June 8, 2000.
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB93056. Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations, by Steven R. Bowman.
CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues,
by Valerie Bailey Grasso.
CRS Issue Brief IB98018. China-U.S. Relations, by Kerry B. Dumbaugh.
CRS Issue Brief IB92056. Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Current Policy Issues, by Shirley A. Kan.
CRS Issue Brief IB87111. F-22 Aircraft Program, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Issue Brief IB10012. Intelligence Issues for Congress, by Richard A. Best.
CRS Issue Brief IB98041. Kosovo and U.S. Policy, by Steven Woehrel and Julie
Kim.
CRS Issue Brief IB10027. Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations; by Steven
R. Bowman.
CRS Issue Brief IB93103. Military Medical Care Services: Questions and Answers,
by Richard A. Best.
CRS Issue Brief IB85159. Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues, by Robert
Goldich.
CRS Issue Brief IB10034. National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by Steven
A. Hildreth and Amy Woolf.
CRS Issue Brief IB98038. Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and
Control Issues, by Amy F. Woolf.

CRS Issue Brief IB94040. Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement, by
Nina Serafino.
CRS Issue Brief IB10036. Restructuring DOE and Its Laboratories: Issues in the

106th Congress; by William C. Boesman.

CRS Issue Brief IB92115. Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress, by
Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Issue Brief IB98034. Taiwan: Recent Developments and U.S. Policy Choices,
by Kerry B. Dumbaugh.
CRS Issue Brief IB98028. Theater Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by Robert
D. Shuey.
CRS Issue Brief IB86103. V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft, by Bert H. Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief IB81050. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance, by
Richard F. Grimmett.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 95-387. Abortion Services and Military Medical Facilities, by David
F. Burrelli.
CRS Report RL30185. The Airborne Laser Anti-Missile Program, by Michael E.
Davey and Frederick Martin.
CRS Report 98-485. China: Possible Missile Technology Transfers from U.S.
Satellite Export Policy–background and Chronology, by Shirley A. Kan.
CRS Report RL30143. China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Data,
by Shirley A. Kan.
CRS Report RL30341. China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy–Key
Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei, by Shirley A. Kan.
CRS Report 95-1126. Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs since 1970 Involving
U.S. Military Forces Withdrawals from Overseas Deployments, by Richard F.
Grimmett.
CRS Report 98-756. Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills: A
Chronology, FY1970-1999, by Gary K. Reynolds.
CRS Report RL30447. Defense Budget for FY2001: Data Summary, by Mary
Tyszkiewicz and Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RL30002. A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary Tyszkiewicz and Stephen
Daggett.

CRS Report RL30392. Defense Outsourcing: The OMB Circular A-76 Program,
by Valerie Grasso.
CRS Report RL30574. Defense Outsourcing: OMB Circular A-76 Policy and
Options for Congress – Proceedings of a CRS Seminar, by Valerie Grasso.
CRS Report 97-316. Defense Research: A Primer on the Department of Defense’s
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Program, by John D.
Moteff.
CRS Report 98-873. Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccination Program, by
Steven R. Bowman.
CRS Report RL30639. Electronic Warfare: EA-6B Aircraft Modernization and
Related Issues for Congress, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RS20203. The Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative for the Former
Soviet Union: Administration Proposals for FY2000, by Amy Woolf and Curt
Tarnoff.
CRS Report RL30113. Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues, by
David F. Burrelli.
CRS Report RL30172. Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,

1798-1999, by Richard F. Grimmett.

CRS Report RL30563. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status,
and Issues, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RS20125. Kosovo: Issues and Options for U.S. Policy, by Steven J.
Woehrel.
CRS Report RL30624. Military Aircraft, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL30051. Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by David
E. Lockwood.
CRS Report 98-823. Military Contingency Funding for Bosnia, Southwest Asia, and
Other Operations: Questions and Answers, by Nina M. Serafino.
CRS Report RL30184. Military Interventions by U.S. Forces from Vietnam to
Bosnia: Background, Outcomes, and “Lessons Learned” for Kosovo, by Nina
M. Serafino.
CRS Report 98-765. Military Youth Programs: ChalleNGe and STARBASE, by
Lawrence Kapp.

CRS Report RL30379. Missile Defense Options for Japan, South Korea, and
Taiwan: A Review of the Defense Department Report to Congress, by Robert
D. Shuey, Shirley A. Kan, and Mark Christofferson.
CRS Report 98-751. Missile Defense: Theater High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) Flight Testing, by Steven A. Hildreth.
CRS Report RL30427. Missile Survey: Ballistic and Cruise Missiles of Foreign
Countries, by Robert D. Shuey.
CRS Report 98-955. National Guard & Reserve Funding, FY1990-1999, by Mary
Tyszkiewicz.
CRS Report RS20062. National Missile Defense and the ABM Treaty: Overview of
Recent Events, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report RS20052. National Missile Defense: The Alaska Option, by Steven A.
Hildreth.
CRS Report RL30398. NATO Burdensharing and Kosovo: a Preliminary Report,
Coordinated by Carl Ek.
CRS Report RL30045. Navy Attack Submarine Programs: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report 98-359. Navy CVN-77 and CVX Aircraft Carrier Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, 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 RS20535. Navy Ship Procurement Rate and the Planned Size of the
Navy: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report 97-1027. Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues
for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report RL30457. Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia,
Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and Other Initiatives,
by Larry Q. Nowels, Stephen Daggett, Curt Tarnoff, Nina Serafino, and Melinda
T. Gish.
CRS Report RS20483. Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, by Shirley A.
Kan.
CRS Report RS20370. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act and Underlying
Issues in U.S. Policy, by Kerry B. Dumbaugh.
CRS Report RL30231. Technology Transfer to China: An Overview of the Cox
Committee Investigation Regarding Satellites, Computers, and DOE

Laboratory Management, by Marcia Smith, Glenn McLoughlin, and William
Boesman.
CRS Report 98-767. U.S. Military Participation in Southwest Border Drug Control:
Questions and Answers, by Nina M. Serafino.
CRS Report RL30345. U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Policy, Force Structure, and Arms
Control Issues, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report RS20412. Weapons of Mass Destruction–The Terrorist Threat, by
Steven R. Bowman and Helit Barel.
Other Resources
Congressional Budget Office, “Aging Military Equipment,” Statement of Lane
Pierrot, Senior Analyst, National Security Division, before the Subcommittee on
Military Procurement, Committee on Armed Services, United States House of
Representatives, February 24,1999.
Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals
for Fiscal Year 2001: A Preliminary Report, March 2000.
Congressional Budget Office, Budgetary and Technical Implications of the
Administration's Plan for National Missile Defense, by Geoffrey Forden, April

2000.

Congressional Budget Office, Budgeting for Defense: Maintaining Today’s Forces,
by Lane Pierrot, September 2000.
Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options for National Defense, March 2000.
Congressional Budget Office, Cooperative Approaches to Halt Russian Nuclear
Proliferation and Improve the Openness of Nuclear Disarmament, by David
Mosher and Geoffrey Forden, May 1999.
Congressional Budget Office, The Drawdown of the Military Officer Corps,
November 1999.
Congressional Budget Office, Making Peace While Staying Ready for War: The
Challenges of U.S. Military Participation in Peace Operations, December 1999.
Congressional Budget Office, “Modernizing Tactical Aircraft,” Statement of
Christopher Jehn, Assistant Director, National Security Division, before the
Subcommittee on Airland Forces, Committee on Armed Services, United States
Senate, March 10, 1999.
Congressional Budget Office, Paying for Military Readiness and Upkeep: Trends in
Operation and Maintenance Spending, by Amy Belasco, September 1997.

Congressional Budget Office, Review of “The Report of the Department of Defense
on Base Realignment and Closure,” July 1998.
Congressional Budget Office, What Does the Military “Pay Gap” Mean?, June 1999.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Cooperative Threat Reduction: DOD’s 1997-98
Reports on Accounting for Assistance Were Late and Incomplete,
GAO/NSIAD-00-40, Mar. 15, 2000.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “Defense Health Care: Observations on Proposed
Benefit Expansion and Overcoming TRICARE Obstacles,” by Stephen P.
Backhus, Director of Veterans’ Affairs and Military Health Care Issues, before
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, House Committee on Armed Services,
GAO/T-HEHS/NSIAD-00-129, Mar. 15, 2000.
U.S. General Accounting Office, F-22 Aircraft: Development Cost Goal Achievable
If Major Problems Are Avoided, GAO/NSIAD-00-68, Mar. 14, 2000.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Development
Schedule Should Be Changed to Reduce Risks,” by Louis J. Rodrigues, Director
of Defense Acquisitions Issues, before subcommittees of the House Committee
on Armed Services. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-132, Mar. 16, 2000.
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/~appropriations/]
House Armed Services Committee
[http://www.house.gov/hasc/]
Senate Armed Services Committee
[http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/]
CRS Appropriations Products
[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 and Budget
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/]
FY2000 Federal Budget Publications
[http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/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) FY2001 Budget Materials
[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2001budget/]
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) Budget
[http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget.htm]
Army Link — the U.S. Army Home Page
[http://www.army.mil/]
Navy On-Line Home Page
[http://www.navy.mil/index-real.html]
Navy Budget Resources
[http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/01pres/db_u.htm]
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/]
Air Force Budget Resources
[http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2001/afpb.html]

Appendix A: Summary Tables
Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2001^a
(budget authority in billions of current year dollars)
Actual Actual ActualEstimateRequest
FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001
244.3 250.7 265.7 272.7 284.3
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year

2001, Feb. 2000, and prior years.^a.

These figures represent current year dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities and contract
authority, and reflect subsequent rescissions and transfers.

CRS-39
Table A2. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs, FY2001: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^{FY2000 Estimate}^{FY2001 Request}^{House Authorization}^{Senate Authorization}^{Authorization Conference}
^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D
^Army
^{Apache Longbow Upgrade}^—^781.4^37.1^—^744.5^17.4^—^744.5^35.8^—^902.5^37.9^—^762.0^27.4
^{Comanche Helicopter}^—^—^463.1^—^—^614.0^—^—^614.0^—^—^614.0^—^—^614.0
^{Blackhawk Helicopter}¹⁹^215.9^9.8⁶^86.8^29.9¹²^157.9^29.9²⁶^283.1^29.9¹⁸^211.7^29.9
^{M1A2 Abrams Tank Upgrade}¹²⁰^633.1^36.5⁸⁰^512.8^82.7^—^512.8^82.7^—^512.8^82.7^—^468.4^82.7
^{Bradley FVS Base Sustainment}^—^379.9^24.8^—^379.4^—⁶⁵^460.7^—^—^379.4^–^—^451.7^—
^Crusader^—^—^266.2^—^—^355.3^—^—^355.3^—^—^355.3^—^—^355.3
^{Navy/Marine Corps}
^{AV-8B Harrier Aircraft}¹¹^300.5^38.4¹⁰^226.6^38.1^—^226.6^38.1¹⁰^226.6^38.1¹²^262.2^38.1
^{F/A-18E/F Hornet}³⁶^2,837.8^141.8⁴²^2,919.7^19.2³⁹^2,713.8^19.2⁴²^2,919.7^19.2⁴²^2,906.6^19.2
^{V-22 Osprey Aircraft}¹¹^921.9^181.9¹⁶^1,208.5^148.2¹⁶^1,208.5^148.2¹⁶^1,208.5^148.2¹⁶^1,208.5^148.2
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL30505}^{DDG-51 Destroyer}³^2,674.7^256.1³^3,070.4^179.7³^3,070.4^179.7³^3,213.6^179.7³^3,160.4^179.7
^g/w^{New Attack Submarine (NSSN)}^—^746.6^372.0¹^1,711.2^320.4¹^1,711.2^320.4¹^1,711.2^320.4¹^1,706.2^320.4^{LPD-17 Amphibious Transport}²^1,504.4^1.3²^1,510.0^2.6²^1,510.0^2.6²^1,510.0^2.6²^1,510.0^2.6
^s^.or^{LHD-8 Advance Procurement}^—^356.2^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^460.0^—^—^460.0^—
^le^ak^{ADC(X) Auxiliary Cargo Ship}¹^438.8^11.9¹^339.0^—¹^339.0^—¹^339.0^—¹^339.0^—
^://wiki^{Air Force}^{B-2 Bomber Post-Production}^—^112.4^297.9^–^61.3^48.3^—^61.3^48.3^—^61.3^53.3^—^61.3^115.3
^h^ttp^{C-17 Airlift Aircraft}¹⁵^3,354.9^159.0¹²^2,890.9^176.4¹²^2,916.8^176.4¹²^2,890.9^176.4¹²^2,840.9^176.4
^{C-130 Aircraft (incl. other services)}²^210.2^40.1⁴^362.9^60.5⁴^362.9^60.5⁵^452.9^60.5⁶^527.5^60.5
^{E-8C Joint Stars Aircraft}¹^262.0^147.6¹^260.6^144.1¹^300.6^146.6¹^306.6^151.3¹^296.6^149.1
^{F-15 Aircraft}⁵^291.6^126.2^—^—^61.3²^149.8^68.9^—^—^68.9²^149.8^68.9
^{F-16 Aircraft}¹⁰^262.2^114.2^—^—^124.9³^51.7^124.9^—^—^124.9²^51.7^119.9
^{F-22 Aircraft}^—^280.5^1,945.1¹⁰^2,546.1^1,411.8¹⁰^2,546.1^1,411.8¹⁰^2,546.1^1,411.8¹⁰^2,546.1^1,411.8
^{Joint/Defense-Wide}
^{Airborne Laser (AF)}^—^—^304.2^—^—^148.6^—^—^231.0^—^—^241.0^—^—^233.6
^{Joint Strike Fighter (AF, Navy)}^—^—^489.0^—^—^856.6^—^—^871.6^—^—^685.3^—^—^688.7
^{Ballistic Missile Defense (BMDO)}^—^361.9^3,424.7^—^444.0^3,943.2^—^509.2^4,633.2^—^444.0^4,183.7^—^440.0^4,207.3
^{Space-Based Infrared System (AF)}^—^—^646.0^—^—^810.2^—^—^569.2^—^—^810.2^—^—^810.2
^{Guard & Reserve Equipment}^—^150.0^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—
^*^Notes^:^All^amounts^exclude^initial^spares^and^military^{construction.}^{For Ballistic Missile Defense, the military construction request is $103.5 million, which is often reported}
^{as part of the total elsewhere. For a full breakdown of Ballistic Missile Defense}^funding,^see^Table^A4^below.^{House authorization provides funds for the Airborne Laser}
^{program in the Ballistic Missile Defense program.}

CRS-40
Table A3. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs, FY2001: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^{FY2000 Estimate}^{FY2001 Request}^{House Appropriations}^{Senate Appropriations}^{Appropriations Conference}
^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D^#^Proc.^R&D
^Army
^{Apache Longbow Upgrade}^—^781.4^37.1^—^744.5^17.4^—^744.5^17.4^—^744.5^29.4^–^762.0^29.4
^{Comanche Helicopter}^—^—^463.1^—^—^614.0^—^—^614.0^—^—^614.0^–^–^614.0
^{Blackhawk Helicopter}¹⁹^215.9^9.8⁶^86.8^29.9¹⁷^223.5^29.9¹²^143.1^29.9¹⁸^211.8^29.9
^{M1A2 Abrams Tank Upgrade}¹²⁰^633.1^36.5⁸⁰^512.8^82.7^—^512.9^120.0^—^512.9^87.2^–^468.4^NA
^{Bradley FVS Base Sustainment}^—^379.9^24.8^—^379.4^—^—^460.7^—^—^388.4^—^–^451.7^–
^Crusader^—^—^266.2^—^—^355.3^—^—^355.3^—^—^200.3^–^–^355.3
^{Navy/Marine Corps}
^{AV-8B Harrier Aircraft}¹¹^300.5^38.4¹⁰^226.6^38.1¹⁰^226.6^38.1¹⁴^302.2^25.0¹²^262.2^25.0
^{F/A-18E/F Hornet}³⁶^2,837.8^141.8⁴²^2,919.7^19.2⁴²^2,919.7^14.2^—^2,877.1^19.2⁴²^2,877.1^14.2
^{V-22 Osprey Aircraft}¹¹^921.9^181.9¹⁶^1,208.5^148.2¹⁶^1,208.5^148.2^—^1,208.5^148.2¹⁶^1,208.5^148.2
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL30505}^{DDG-51 Destroyer}³^2,674.7^256.1³^3,070.4^179.7³^3,060.4^179.7³^3,213.6^179.7³^3,160.4^179.7
^g/w^{New Attack Submarine (NSSN)}^—^746.6^372.0¹^1,711.2^320.4¹^1,706.2^320.4^—^1,711.2^320.4¹^1,706.2^320.4^{LPD-17 Amphibious Transport}²^1,504.4^1.3²^1,510.0^2.6²^1,500.0^2.0^—^464.3^2.6^–^540.0^2.6
^s^.or^{LHD-8 Advance Procurement}^—^356.2^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^460.0^—^–^460.0^–
^le^ak^{ADC(X) Auxiliary Cargo Ship}¹^438.8^11.9¹^339.0^—^—^349.0^—^—^339.0^—¹^339.0^–
^://wiki^{Air Force}^{B-2 Bomber Post-Production}^—^112.4^297.9^–^61.3^48.3^—^61.3^145.0^—^61.3^53.3^–^61.3^130.3
^h^ttp^{C-17 Airlift Aircraft*}¹⁵^3,354.9^159.0¹²^2,890.9^176.4¹²^2,805.8^176.4¹²^2,890.9^176.4¹²^2,840.9^176.4
^{C-130 Aircraft (incl. other services)}²^210.2^40.1⁴^362.9^60.5⁵^439.2^60.5⁶^527.5^60.5⁶^527.5^60.5
^{E-8C Joint Stars Aircraft}¹^262.0^147.6¹^260.6^144.1¹^290.6^151.3¹^306.6^151.3¹^296.6^149.1
^{F-15 Aircraft}⁵^291.6^126.2^—^—^61.3⁵^400.0^68.9^—^—^66.3⁵^400.0^68.9
^{F-16 Aircraft}¹⁰^262.2^114.2^—^—^124.9^—^—^133.9⁶^183.0^125.9⁴^122.0^123.9
^{F-22 Aircraft}^—^280.5^1,945.1¹⁰^2,546.1^1,411.8¹⁰^2,546.1^1,411.8¹⁰^2,546.1^2,546.1¹⁰^2,546.1^1,411.8
^{Joint/Defense-Wide}
^{Airborne Laser (AF)}^—^—^304.2^—^—^148.6^—^—^148.6^—^—^241.0^–^–^233.6
^{Joint Strike Fighter (AF, Navy)}^—^—^489.0^—^—^856.6^—^—^706.6^—^—^653.3^–^–^688.7
^{Ballistic Missile Defense (BMDO)}^—^361.9^3,424.7^—^444.0^3,943.2^—^444.0^4,111.4^—^444.0^—^–^444.0^4,262.3
^{Space-Based Infrared System (AF)}^—^—^646.0^—^—^810.2^—^—^810.2^—^—^810.2^–^–^810.2
^{Guard & Reserve Equipment}^—^150.0^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^150.0^–^–^100.0^–
^*^Notes^:^All^amounts^exclude^initial^spares^and^military^{construction.}^{For Ballistic Missile Defense, the military construction request is $103.5 million, which is often reported}
^as^part^of^the^total^elsewhere.^{For a full breakdown of Ballistic Missile Defense funding, see}^T^{able A4}^below.^The^conference^agreement^provides^C-17^procurement^funds
^{in Title V, Revolving and Management Funds, rather than in Title III, Procurement.}

Table A4. Ballistic Missile Defense Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY2001^House^Senate^Auth.^House^Senate^Approp.
^Request^Auth.^Auth.^Conf.^Approp.^Approp.^Conf.
^Procurement
^{Patriot PAC-3}^365.5^430.7^365.5^365.5^365.5^365.5^365.5
^{National Missile Defense}^74.5^74.5^74.5^74.5^74.5^74.5^74.5
^C4I^4.0^4.0^4.0^4.0^4.0^4.0^4.0
^{Navy Area Defense}^–^–^0.0^0.0^–^–^0.0
^{TOTAL PROCUREMENT}^444.0^509.2^444.0^444.0^444.0^444.0^444.0
^RDT&E
^{Applied Research}
^{62173C Support Technologies}^37.7^47.7^49.7^39.7^50.2^56.2^56.2
^{Advanced Technology Development}
^{63173C Support Technologies}^93.2^122.2^130.2^121.5^123.2^134.4^132.0
^{63174C Space Based Lasers}^74.5^74.5^74.5^74.5^58.0^74.5^74.5
^{Demonstration and Validation}
^{63861C THAAD Dem/Val}^–^0.0^0.0^--^–^–^0.0
^{63868C Navy Theater Wide}^382.7^407.7^442.7^462.7^512.7^442.7^462.7
^{63869C MEADS Concepts}^63.2^63.2^63.2^53.5^53.5^63.2^53.5
^{63870C Boost Phase Intercept}^–^–^–^--^–^–^–
^{63871C National Missile Defense}^1,740.2^2,066.3^1,869.2^1,875.2^1,740.2^1,879.2^1,875.2
^{63872C Joint Theater Missile Defense}^–^–^5.0^0.0^–^–^–
^{63873C Family of Systems Eng. & Integration}^231.2^255.8^231.2^231.2^231.2^231.2^231.2
^{63874C BMD Technical Operations}^270.7^315.1^280.2^291.2^292.7^304.2^313.2
^{63875C International Cooperative Programs}^117.0^117.0^105.0^125.0^117.0^125.0^131.0
^{63876C Threat and Countermeasures}^22.6^22.6^22.6^22.6^22.6^22.6^22.6
^{63xxxC Airborne Laser (from AF)}^–^231.0^–^--^–^–^–
^{91585C Pentagon Reservation}^4.8^4.8^4.8^4.8^4.8^4.8^4.8
^{Engineering & Manufacturing Development}
^{64861C THAAD EMD}^549.9^549.9^549.9^549.9^549.9^549.9^549.9
^{64865C Patriot PAC-3 EMD}^81.0^81.0^81.0^81.0^81.0^81.0^81.0
^{64867C Navy Area Defense EMD}^274.2^274.2^274.2^274.2^274.2^274.2^274.2
^{TOTAL RDT&E}^3,943.2^4,633.2^4,183.7^4,207.3^4,111.4^4,243.4^4,262.3
^{Military Construction}^103.5^103.5^103.5^103.5^103.5^103.5^103.5
^{TOTAL Ballistic Missile Defense}^4,490.6^5,245.9^4,731.1^4,754.7^4,658.9^4,790.8^4,809.7
^Organization
^{Related Programs}
^{12419A Aerostat Joint Project Office}^25.0^25.0^27.0^27.0^25.0^27.0^27.0
^{63319F Airborne Laser Program}^148.6^0.0^241.0^233.6^148.6^241.0^233.6
^{64441F Space-Based Infrared System – High}^569.2^569.2^569.2^569.2^569.2^569.2^569.2
^{64442F Space-Based Infrared System – Low*}^241.0^0.0^241.0^241.0^241.0^241.0^241.0
^Sources:^{H.Rept. 106-616; S.Rept. 106-292; S.Rept. 106-298; H.Rept. 106-754; H.Rept. 106-945.}
^*^Note^{: The House authorization adds $241 million for SBIRS-Low to PE 63871C, National Missile Defense.}

Table A5. National Defense Budget Request by Appropriations Bill
(millions of dollars)
EstimateRequest
FY2000FY2001
Department of Defense, Military Activities (Subfunction 051)
Defense Appropriations Bill
Military Personnel73,69075,802
Operation and Maintenance194,861109,286
Procurement 54,208 60,270
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation38,35637,862
Revolving and Management Funds1,6501,154
Total, Defense Appropriations Bill272,765284,374
Military Construction Appropriations Bill
Military Construction4,7034,549
Family Housing3,5973,85
Total, Military Construction Appropriations Bill8,3908,034
DOD Offsetting Receipts and Other Adjustments-1,237-1,321
Total DOD Military (Subfunction 051)279,918291,087
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Subfunction 053)
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill
Atomic Energy Defense Activities12,18412,744
Former Sites Remedial Action150140
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board1718
Total Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Subfunction 053)12,15713,084
Defense-Related Activities (Subfunction 054)
Defense Appropriations Bill
Intelligence Community Management Staff130111
CIA Retirement and Disability Fund209216
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)4648
U.S. Antarctic Logistics Support (National Science Foundation)6363
Selective Service System2425
Transportation Appropriations Bill
Coast Guard Defense-Related Activities300341
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill
Maritime Security Program9699
Radiation Exposure516
Export Administration22
Department of Justice Defense-Related2727
Telecommunications Compliance Fund88
FBI Defense-Related292300
Total Defense-Related (Subfunction 054)1,2021,250
Total National Defense Budget Function (Function 050)293,283305,421
Source: Department of Defense Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year

2001, March 2000.

Table A6. National Defense Budget Function Funding in the
Congressional Budget Resolution
(current year dollars in billions)
Fiscal Year:2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Administration Request
Budget Authority305.4309.2315.6323.4331.7
Outlays 291.2 298.4 307.4 316.5 330.7
CBO Reestimate of Administration Request
Budget Authority305.3309.0315.4323.1331.4
Outlays 293.6 302.1 309.3 317.4 327.8
House-Passed Congressional Budget Resolution
Budget Authority306.3309.3315.6323.4331.7
Outlays 297.6 302.0 309.4 317.6 328.1
Difference from Reestimated Request
Budget Authority+1.0+0.3+0.2+0.3+0.3
Outlays +4.0 -0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.3
Senate-Passed Budget Resolution
Budget Authority309.8309.1315.5323.2331.5
Outlays 296.1 302.3 309.4 317.5 328.0
Difference from Reestimated Request
Budget Authority+4.5+0.1+0.1+0.1+0.1
Outlays +2.5 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1
Budget Resolution Conference Agreement
Budget Authority309.9 309.2 315.6 323.4 331.7
Outlays296.7 303.2 309.8 317.9 328.3
Difference from Reestimated Request
Budget Authority+4.6+0.2+0.2+0.3+0.3
Outlays +3.1 +1.1 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5
Sources: H.Con.Res. 290; S.Con.Res. 101.

Table A7. Administration National Defense Budget Function Projection by
Appropriations Title, Budget Authority, FY1999-2005
(current year dollars in billions)
Actual Est. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj.
FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005
Department of Defense (military activities only)
Military Personnel70.673.775.878.480.483.185.6
Operation & Maintenance105.0104.9109.3107.5109.1112.2114.8
Procurement 50.9 54.2 60.3 63.0 66.7 67.7 70.9
RDT&E 38.3 38.4 37.9 38.4 37.6 37.5 36.4
Military Construction5.44.84.54.33.84.65.4
Family Housing3.63.63.53.73.94.04.1
Other 4.6 0.4 -0.2 -0.5 -0.5 -0.7 -0.7
Subtotal, Department of Defense278.4279.9291.1294.8300.9308.3316.4
Department of Energy
Atomic Energy Defense Activities12.612.213.113.213.413.813.9
Other Agencies
Defense-Related Activities1.11.21.31.31.31.31.4
Total, National Defense292.1293.3305.4309.2315.6323.4331.7
Sources: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2001, Feb. 2000.

Table A8: FY2000 Supplemental Appropriations for the Department of Defense
(millions of dollars)
^Request^House^Passed^Versus^Request^Senate^Passed^Versus^Request^Conf.^Approp.^Versus^Request
^{Operation and Maintenance, Defense Wide}
^{Natural Disaster-Related Expenses}^27.4^115.9^+88.5^128.2^+100.8^128.2^+100.8
^{Vieques-Related Activities}^40.0^+40.0^40.0^+40.0^40.0^+40.0
^{Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund}
^{Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo (KFOR)}^2,025.4^2,025.4^0.0^1,825.4^-200.0^2,025.4^0.0
^{Military Support to the International Force in East}^25.0^25.0^0.0^25.0^0.0^25.0^0.0
^Timor
^{Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense}
^{Support of Plan Colombia FY2000-FY2001}^98.4^185.8^+87.4^85.7^-12.7^154.1^+55.7
^{Aircraft Procurement, Army}
^{Airborne Reconaissance Low (ARL) Aircraft}^–^–^–^30.0^+30.0^30.0^+30.0
^{Aircraft Procurement, Air Force}
^{Foreign Emergency Support Team Aircraft}^73.0^73.0^0.0^73.0^0.0^73.0^0.0
^{Tactical Aviation Shortfalls [by transfer, non-additive]}^–^[90.0]^[+90.0]^–^–^90.0^+90.0
^{Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army}
^{M1A2 Tank Upgrades [by transfer, non-additive]}^–^[125.0]^[+125.0]^–^–^163.7^+163.7
^{Military Construction, Defense-Wide}
^{Forward Operating Location (FOL), Manta, Ecuador}^38.6^61.3^+22.7^61.3^+22.7^61.3^+22.7
^{FOL, Aruba}^–^10.3^+10.3^10.3^+10.3^10.3^+10.3
^{FOL, Curacao}^–^43.9^+43.9^43.9^+43.9^43.9^+43.9
^{Military Construction Plan and Design}^–^1.1^+1.1^1.1^+1.1^1.1^+1.1
^{Military Construction}
^{Army Reserve Center, Greenville, NC, Storm Damage}^–^12.3^+12.3^12.3^+12.3^–^–
^{Army National Guard, Gulfport, MS, Storm Damage}^–^–^–^9.1^+9.1^–^–
^{Family Housing, Storm Damage}^–^6.7^+6.7^4.7^+4.7^–^–
^{National Missile Defense Planning}^–^–^–^1.0^+1.0^1.0^+1.0
^{Military Construction & Family Housing Storm}^–^–^–^–^–^19.0^+19.0
^Damage
^{Land Acquisition, Blount Island, FL}^–^–^–^–^–^35.0^+35.0
^{Rescission of FY1996 Military Construction Funds}^–^–^–^–^–^-35.0^-35.0
^{Defense Working Capital Fund (Petroleum Cost Growth)}^–^1,556.2^+1,556.2^964.3^+964.3^1,556.2^+1,556.2
^{Defense Health Program}
^{Increased TRICARE Contract Costs}^–^854.5^+854.5^–^–^615.6^+615.6
^{FY2001 DHP Costs/General Provision, DHP}^–^750.0^+750.0^695.9^+695.9^695.9^+695.9
^{Basic Allowance for Housing (Avail. to 9/30/01)}^–^221.0^+221.0^–^–^27.0^+27.0
^{Overseas Supplemental Food Program (Avail. to 9/30/01)}^–^10.0^+10.0^–^–^–^0.0
^{Recruiting, Advertising, and Retention (Avail. to 9/30/01)}^–^600.6^+600.6^–^–^357.3^+357.3
^{Depot Level Maintenance and Repair (Avail. to 9/30/01)}^–^1,205.6^+1,205.6^–^–^220.0^+220.0
^{High-Priority Support to Deployed Forces (Avail. to 9/30/01)}
^{Operation and Maintenance}^–^738.9^+738.9^–^–^96.0^+96.0
^Procurement^–^405.8^+405.8^–^–^344.9^+344.9
^RDT&E^–^68.0^+68.0^–^–^63.0^+63.0
^{Biometrics Information Assurance}^–^–^–^7.0^+7.0^7.0^+7.0
^{Patriot Missile Enhancement Program}^–^–^–^125.0^+125.0^125.0^+125.0
^{Operation Walking Shield}^–^–^–^0.3^+0.3^0.3^+0.3
^{East Timor and Mozambique Humanitarian Assistance}^–^–^–^61.5^+61.5^61.5^+61.5
^{Macalloy [transfer to EPA, non-additive]}^–^–^–^[9.6]^[+9.6]^[9.6]^[+9.6]
^{Utah Olympic Games Support}^–^–^–^8.0^+8.0^8.0^+8.0
^{Rescissions of Lapsing Prior Year Funds}^–^–^–^–^–^-286.6^-286.6
^{Total, DOD Supplemental Appropriations}^2,287.8^9,011.2^+6,723.4^4,213.0^+1,925.2^6,757.0^+4,469.2
^Sources^:^Office^of^Management^and^Budget,^Budget^of^the^United^States^Government^for^Fiscal^Year^2001:^Appendix,^Feb.^2000;
^{House Appropriations Committee; House Rules Committee; H.Rept. 106-521; S.Rept. 106-290; H.Rept. 106-710.}