Order Code RL30205
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2000: Defense
Updated July 21, 1999
Stephen Daggett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Defense Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative status of the
bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists
the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.

---

Appropriations for FY2000: Defense
Summary
On July 16, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) approved its version
of the FY2000 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2561, and floor debate is expected
on July 21. This is the last of the annual defense bills to come to the floor -- on May
27, the Senate approved its version of the FY2000 defense authorization bill, S. 1059;
on June 8, the Senate approved its version of the FY2000 defense appropriations bill,
S. 1122; and on June 10, the House approved its version of the authorization, H.R.
1401. The HAC bill does not include $1.8 billion that the Administration requested
to procure six F-22 fighter aircraft, prompting a far-reaching debate about tactical
aircraft modernization. Other major issues in the FY2000 defense debate have
included whether to approve a new round of military base closures, how much to
provide for military pay and benefits, whether to impose constraints on funding for
U.S. military operations in Kosovo, how to fund theater missile defense programs,
and how to respond to security lapses at Department of Energy weapons labs.
Neither chamber’s version of the defense authorization bill approves a new round
of military base closures. All of the House and Senate bills provide somewhat larger
increases in pay and benefits than the Administration had requested. Although
Congress has approved supplemental FY1999 appropriations for Kosovo operations,
costs in FY2000 have not been addressed, and the Administration’s policy remains
controversial. The House removed a provision from the defense authorization bill
prohibiting funds to be used for future operations in Kosovo, but only after the
Administration agreed to seek supplemental appropriations for a peacekeeping
mission. Earlier in the year, both houses approved bills calling for deployment of a
nationwide missile defense, but funding for missile defense programs remains a matter
of some dispute. The Senate- and House-passed authorizations both include
provisions to strengthen security at DOE labs and to regulate relations with China.
The level of defense spending still remains unresolved. The Administration’s
FY2000 request for national defense totals $280.8 billion in new budget authority.
The main issues in Congress have been, (1) whether and how much to add to the
Administration’s request and (2) how to fit defense increases within budget limits. On
April 15, both the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement on the
FY2000 congressional budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 68. Compared to the
Administration request, the resolution provides an increase of $8.0 billion in budget
authority for national defense and of $2.5 billion in outlays. Both the House and
Senate versions of the defense authorization provide $288.8 billion in budget
authority, at the budget resolution level. The Senate-passed appropriations bill,
however, uses about $4.9 billion of funds provided in the Kosovo supplemental
appropriations bill as an offset for defense increases and provides a total of $264.7
billion, $1.4 billion above the request. The HAC bill provides $268.7 billion in new
budget authority for the Defense Department and other agencies, offset by $2.6 billion
in assumed savings from spectrum sales, for total appropriations of $266.1 billion.
The amount available to DOD and other agencies in the bill is $5.4 billion above the
request and $4.0 billion above the Senate level.

---

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Telephone
Acquisition
Valerie Grasso
FDT
7-7617
Arms Sales
Richard Grimmett
FDT
7-7675
Base Closure; Acquisition
David Lockwood
FDT
7-7621
Bombers
Dagnija Sterste-Perkins
FDT
7-7631
Defense Budget
Stephen Daggett
FDT
7-7642
Defense Budget
Mary Tyszkiewicz
FDT
7-3144
Defense Industry
Gary Pagliano
FDT
7-1750
Defense R&D
Michael Davey
RSI
7-7074
Defense R&D
Richard Nunno
RSI
7-7037
Defense R&D
John Moteff
RSI
7-1435
Ground Forces
Edward Bruner
FDT
7-2775
Ground Forces
Steven Bowman
FDT
7-7613
Intelligence
Richard Best
FDT
7-7607
Military Construction
Mary Tyszkiewicz
FDT
7-3144
Military Personnel
David Burrelli
FDT
7-8033
Missile Defense
Robert Shuey
FDT
7-7677
Missile Defense
Steven Hildreth
FDT
7-7635
Naval Forces
Ronald O’Rourke
FDT
7-7610
Nuclear Weapons
Jonathan Medalia
FDT
7-7632
Peace Operations
Nina Serafino
FDT
7-7667
Personnel; Reserves
Robert Goldich
FDT
7-7633
Strategic Forces
Amy Woolf
FDT
7-2379
Theater Aircraft
Bert Cooper
FDT
7-7604
War Powers
Louis Fisher
G&F
7-8676
War Powers
Richard Grimmett
FDT
7-7675

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Defense Budget Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Increased Military Pay and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Ballistic Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Military Action in Yugoslavia and Forces in Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Base Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Major Weapons Programs and Military Service Unfunded Priorities Lists
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Military Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Cooperative Threat Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Strategic Nuclear Force Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Emerging Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Social Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
China Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Defense Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Other Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A: Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2000 Defense Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2: Real Growth/Decline in National Defense Funding Under Administration
Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3: Administration Plan for Financing the Defense Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4: Congressional Budget Resolution Compared to
Administration National Defense Budget Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 5: Costs of Administration Pay and Benefits Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table A2: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs: FY2000
Authorization and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

---

Table A3: National Defense Budget Function by Appropriations Title Under
Administration Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table A4: Ballistic Missile Defense Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table A5: Congressional Action on Defense Authorization by Title . . . . . . . . . 32
Table A6: Congressional Action on Defense Appropriations by Title . . . . . . . . 32

---

Appropriations for FY2000: Defense
Most Recent Developments
On July 16, the House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the
FY2000 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2561, and floor debate is expected during
the week of June 19. This is the last of the annual defense bills to come to the floor
-- on May 27, the Senate approved its version of the FY2000 defense authorization
bill, S. 1059; on June 8, the Senate approved its version of the FY2000 defense
appropriations bill, S. 1122; and on June 10, the House approved its version of the
authorization, H.R. 1401. The HAC bill does not include $1.8 billion that the
Administration requested for procurement of F-22 fighter aircraft. Earlier, on May
18, the House, and on May 20, the Senate, approved a conference agreement on
H.R. 1141, a bill providing supplemental appropriations for military and refugee
relief operations in Kosovo, military readiness, Central America disaster relief, and
other purposes.
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:

---

CRS-2
! the military construction appropriations bill, which finances construction
of military facilities and construction and operation of military family housing,
all administered by DOD;
! the energy and water development appropriations bill, which funds atomic
energy defense activities administered by the Department of Energy;
! the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill, which finances civil
defense activities administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and activities of the Selective Service System;
! the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which funds national
security-related activities of the FBI; and
! the transportation appropriations bill, which funds some defense-related
activities of the Coast Guard.
The Administration’s FY2000 budget includes $280.8 billion for the national defense
budget function, of which $262.9 billion is requested in the defense appropriations
bill.
Status
Congressional action on defense-related legislation began very early this year --
on February 24, the Senate approved S.4, a bill to provide pay raises and improve
benefits for military personnel; in March both the Senate and the House approved bills
on missile defense policy; and on April 15, both the House and the Senate approved
a conference agreement on the annual congressional budget resolution. On May 18,
the House, and on May 20, the Senate, approved supplemental appropriations for
FY1999; on May 27, the Senate approved its version of the FY2000 defense
authorization bill, S. 1059; on June 8, the Senate approved its version of the FY2000
defense appropriations bill, S. 1122; on June 10, the House approved its version of
the authorization, H.R. 1401; and on July 16, the House Appropriations Committee
ordered reported its version of the defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2561. On May
19, the House Appropriations Committee announced allocations of funds to each of
the 13 subcommittees, in accordance with Section 302(b) of the Congressional
Budget Act, and on May 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its initial
allocations. Both committees have subsequently revised their allocations.

The status of major legislation to date is as follows:
! Military pay and benefits: On February 24, by a vote of 91-8, the Senate
passed S. 4, a bill to provide pay raises and improve benefits for members of
the armed forces. The provisions of S. 4 have now been folded into the
Senate-passed version of the defense authorization, and much of S. 4 is
included in the House-passed version.

---

CRS-3
! Missile defense policy: On March 17, by a vote of 97-3, the Senate approved
S. 257, the "Cochran-Inouye National Missile Defense Act of 1999," a bill
calling for deployment of a nationwide missile defense system as soon as
technologically feasible. On March 18, by a vote of 317-105, the House
approved H.R. 4, a bill declaring it the policy of the United States to deploy
a nationwide missile defense. On May 18, the Senate took up H.R. 4 and
substituted the text of S. 257. On May 20, by a vote of 345-17 the House
approved the Senate version, thus clearing the bill for the White House.
! Supplemental appropriations for FY1999: On March 23, the Senate
approved a bill, S. 544, providing supplemental appropriations for FY1999,
including funds to respond to damage caused by Hurricane Mitch and
Hurricane Georges and aid to Jordan. The House approved its version of the
bill, H.R. 1141, on March 24. On May 6, the House approved H.R. 1664, a
second emergency supplemental appropriations bill to provide funds for
military operations in Yugoslavia and for some other purposes. Subsequently,
Senate and House conferees folded Kosovo-related funding into H.R. 1141
and reported a conference agreement on May 13. The House approved the
1
conference report on May 18 and the Senate on May 20. As passed, H.R.
1141 includes funds for a military pay raise and benefit increases and for
defense readiness that normally would be included in the regular FY2000
defense appropriations bill.
! FY2000 concurrent budget resolution: On March 24, both the House and
the Senate approved versions of the FY2000 congressional budget
resolution — H.Con.Res. 68 in the House and S.Con.Res. 20 in the Senate.
On April 15, both chambers approved a conference report on H.Con.Res. 68.
! Senate defense authorization bill: On May 13 the Senate Armed Services
Committee approved its version of the FY2000 defense authorization bill, S.
1059, and the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 92-3 on May 27.
! House defense authorization bill: On May 19, the House Armed Services
Committee approved its version of the FY2000 defense authorization bill, H.R.
2401, and the House approved the bill by a vote of 365-38 on June 10.
! Senate defense appropriations bill: On May 25, the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved its version of the FY2000 defense appropriations bill, S.
1122, and the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 93-4 on June 8.
! House defense appropriations bill: On July 16, the House Appropriations
committee approved its version of the FY2000 defense appropriations bill,
H.R. 2561, and floor action is expected on July 21.
1 For a discussion, see Stephen Daggett, Kosovo Military Operations: Costs and
Congressional Action on Funding, CRS Report RS20161 and Larry Q. Nowels,
Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999: Central America Disaster Aid, Middle East
Peace, and Other Initiatives, CRS Report RL30083.

---

CRS-4
! 302(b) allocations: On May 19, the House Appropriations Committee
approved its initial allocation of funds to the 13 subcommittees. The
allocations provided $270.292 billion in budget authority and $261.73 billion
in outlays to the defense subcommittee, a total consistent with the amounts
allocated to the national defense budget function in the budget resolution.
These allocations were subsequently reduced, however, in order to allocate
somewhat more money to non-defense appropriations bills. On July 1, the
committee announced revised allocations to that provide $267.692 billion in
budget authority and $259.13 billion in outlays to the defense subcommittee.
On May 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its initial
allocations, providing $265.193 billion in budget authority and $253.104 billion
in outlays for the defense subcommittee. These allocations, too, were later
reduced -- allocations announced on June 24 provide $263.722 billion in
budget authority and $254.409 billion in outlays for defense.
Table 1. Status of FY2000 Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate Conference
Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
5/25/99 6/8/99
7/12/99 5/24/99 7/16/99
—
S.Rept.
—
—
—
—
(93-4)
106-53
Major Issues
In its February budget, the Administration requested $280.8 billion in new
budget authority for national defense in FY2000, and the Department of Defense
(DOD) projects modest growth in defense spending in following years. Compared
to long-term Defense Department projections last year, the proposal represents a
significant increase in funding — as the Administration calculates it, the plan reflects
an increase of $12.6 billion in budget authority for defense programs in FY2000 and
a total increase of $112 billion over the six-year FY2000-2005 period. The main issue
in Congress has been how to fit defense increases within overall federal budget
constraints.

In addition to debate about the level of defense spending, several other issues
arose early in the session, including
! how much to increase military pay and benefits;
! whether to require deployment of a nationwide missile defense; and
! whether to approve military operations against Yugoslavia and how much
money to provide for Kosovo-related operations.
With action on annual defense authorization and appropriations bills now underway,
several other issues are on the agenda, including —

---

CRS-5
! Whether to approve one or more additional rounds of military base closures:
Neither the House nor the Senate versions of the defense authorization bill
approve new base closures.
! Whether to limit peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Haiti: While
operations against Yugoslavia have been funded through the end of FY1999,
future costs have not been addressed. The House Armed Services Committee
(HASC) version of the authorization included a controversial measure to
prohibit use funds authorized in the bill for operations in Kosovo, but that
provision was removed in a floor vote after the White House said that it would
seek supplemental appropriations to support a peacekeeping mission. The
House also voted to remove U.S. forces from Haiti.
! How to structure Theater Missile Defense (TMD) programs: The Senate
version of the authorization rejects an Administration plan to combine future
funding for high-altitude theater missile defense programs — the Navy Theater
Wide program and the ground-based Theater High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) system.
! How to allocate additional funds for major weapons programs: All of the
defense bills add money for weapons procurement and R&D. Most of the
congressional additions to the Administration request are for programs
identified in unfunded priorities lists from each of the services. The Senate,
however, also added funds for four F-15 aircraft. The House Appropriations
Committee rejected the Administration request for $1.8 billion for F-22 fighter
aircraft procurement and allocated the money to several areas, including
additional F-15 and F-16 aircraft procurement.
! How to address perceived shortfalls in military readiness: The Kosovo
supplemental appropriations bill adds some money for military readiness and
recruitment, and both HASC and SASC provided additional funds in their
versions of the authorization bill. An unresolved issue, however, is whether
improved pay and benefits and added readiness funds get at the root causes of
perceived problems.
! Whether to restructure the Cooperative Threat Reduction program with states
of the former Soviet Union: HASC reduced support for chemical weapons
demilitarization and increased funds for some nuclear weapons projects.
! Strategic nuclear force levels: The SASC bill includes a provision allowing a
reduction in the number of deployed Trident submarine from 14 to 18, but the
bill also continues a prohibition on reductions of other systems until Russia
ratifies the START II treaty. The Senate rejected a floor amendment by
Senator Kerrey to repeal the restriction.
! How to coordinate defenses against terrorism and other emerging threats:
SASC established a new account in the authorization bill to coordinate funding
to cope with terrorism and other emerging threats and increased funding.

---

CRS-6
! Social issues: Both the House and the Senate rejected amendments to allow
privately funded abortions for DOD personnel at U.S. military health facilities
abroad.
! China policy/DOE security: Following the release of the report of the House
Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial
Concerns with the People's Republic of China, chaired by Rep. Cox, both the
House and the Senate added provisions to their versions of the defense
authorization to bolster security at Department of Energy (DOE) labs and to
further regulate relations with China.
The following sections review the defense budget debate and then discuss major
defense policy issues.
The Defense Budget Debate
The Administration Proposal. The Administration requested a total of $280.8
billion in new budget authority for national defense in FY2000 and estimated outlays
of $274.1 billion. The Defense Department projects that national defense funding will
grow to $333.0 billion in budget authority and $331.4 billion in outlays by FY2005.2
Adjusted for inflation, this represents a very slow rate of growth — by FY2005, total
budget authority for national defense will be about 3.6% greater than in FY1999 in
constant, inflation-adjusted prices, a growth rate of 0.6% per year — see Table 2.
Table 2: Real Growth/Decline in National Defense Funding
Under Administration Projections
(current and constant FY2000 dollars in billions)
Est.
Proj.
Proj.
Proj.
Proj.
Proj.
Proj.
FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005
Budget Authority
Current year dollars
276.2
280.8
300.5
302.4
312.8
321.7
333.0
Constant FY2000 dollars
282.6
280.8
293.1
287.7
290.2
290.5
292.7
Real growth/decline
-0.1%
-0.6%
+4.4%
-1.8%
+0.9%
+0.1%
+0.8%
Outlays
Current year dollars
276.7
274.1
282.1
292.1
304.0
313.8
331.4
Constant FY2000 dollars
283.0
274.1
275.2
277.9
282.0
283.4
291.4
Real growth/decline
+1.1%
-3.2%
+0.4%
+1.0%
+1.5%
+0.5%
+2.8%
Source: Office of Management and Budget and Department of Defense figures for current year
dollars; constant dollars calculated using deflators from the Department of Defense Comptroller.

2 The Defense Department operates on a biennial budget cycle — it prepares a six-year budget
plan at the start of the cycle, which then becomes a five-year plan the next year. Most other
government agencies prepare only a five-year plan, so the defense plan this year extends one
year further than most other federal budget projections.

---

CRS-7
Although the projected rate of growth in defense spending is modest, the plan
represents an end to the decline in military funding that has been underway since the
mid-1980s — the turnaround under Administration projections does not begin until
FY2001, but this is mainly an artifact of the way the Administration has proposed
financing military construction projects in FY2000 (see below for a discussion). The
projected growth in spending is particularly substantial in weapons procurement —
under the Administration plan, purchases of new weapons will climb from $49 billion
in FY1999 to $75 billion in FY2005. The long-term decline in funding for weapons
acquisition has been a particular focus of congressional concern for some time, so the
upturn in procurement is noteworthy. Table A3 in the Appendix shows the
Administration’s long-term plan broken down by appropriations title.
Officials have broken down the $112 billion six-year increase into three
components:
! $35 billion for improvements in pay and benefits for military personnel,
including across-the board pay raises of 4.4% in FY2000 and 3.9% per year
thereafter; pay table reform to provide higher raises in the upper grades;
changes in retirement benefits; and increased bonuses and special pay;
! $49 billion in operation and maintenance accounts, of which about $10 billion
is to cover higher pay raises for civilian Defense Department employees;
! $29 billion for weapons modernization and facilities repair and replacement.
When the budget was being prepared, DOD officials say, the chiefs of the military
services requested about $148 billion in increased funding over the six-year period.
The $112 billion addition, they say, includes all that the chiefs requested for personnel
and readiness and about half of the amounts requested for weapons acquisition and
facilities.
Financing the Administration Plan. The overarching budget issue for FY2000
has been how to cope with rather stringent limits on total discretionary spending while
permitting an increase of some magnitude in defense expenditures. Under the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1997 (part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33),
total budget authority for discretionary programs is limited to $537 billion in FY2000,
according to CBO estimates. This amount is substantially below the FY1999 level,
though how much below depends on how the FY1999 baseline is defined. An
3
y
increase in the defense budget will further reduce funds available for non-defense
discretionary spending.
The Administration, however, wants to increase both defense and non-defense
discretionary spending while technically adhering to the budget limits. The
Administration’s answer is (1) to propose total discretionary budget authority and
outlays considerably above the caps established in the 1997 budget agreement by
applying savings in mandatory programs and increased revenues as offsets to increases
in the discretionary part of the budget and (2) to use various accounting measures
within the FY2000 defense budget to offset increases. Table 3, taken directly from

3 For alternative measures, see Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the President’s
Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2000, April, 1999, p. 5.

---

CRS-8
DOD briefing material, shows how the Administration has explained its proposed
financing measures.
Table 3: Administration Plan for Financing the Defense Increase
(DOD discretionary budget authority in billions of current year dollars)*
Total
FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2000-
2005
FY1999 DOD Budget
264.1
272.3
275.5
285.2
292.1
299.4
1,688.7
FY2000 DOD Budget
268.2
287.4
289.3
299.7
308.5
319.8
1,773.0
Additional Topline
+4.1
+15.1
+13.8
+14.5
+16.3
+20.5
+84.3
Economic Changes
+3.8
+3.9
+4.1
+4.5
+4.7
+5.1
+26.1
MilCon “Split Funding”
+3.1
-3.1
—
—
—
—
—
Rescissions
+1.6
—
—
—
—
—
+1.6
Total
+12.6
+15.9
+17.9
+19.0
+21.0
+25.6
+112.0
Source: Department of Defense.
*Note: Reflects discretionary funds for the Department of Defense only — does not include small,
negative amounts of mandatory funds.
Questions have been raised about each of the offsets, including,
! Inflation savings: Of the $112 billion increase that the Administration is
proposing through FY2005, $26.1 billion is offset by projected inflation
savings — savings of $3.8 billion are assumed in FY2000. The key issue is
whether estimated increases in purchasing power are accurate. Defense
officials have said that almost all of the projected savings are due to lower
inflation in 1998, which established a lower base for price trends in the
future — “out-year” inflation projections are only about 1/10th of 1 percent
lower than last year. A perennial question is whether decision-makers will
agree to add money to the defense budget in the future if inflation accelerates.
! “Split funding” for FY2000 military construction projects: The Defense
Department’s FY2000 military construction/family housing budget plan
includes $8.5 billion worth of projects, but the Administration is requesting
only $5.4 billion in appropriations. The remaining $3.1 billion is requested as
advance appropriations to be scored as new budget authority in FY2001. The
request to provide “split funding” for FY2000 projects is not a change in
policy, but a one-time exercise done only because of budget rules — the intent
is to reduce requested budget authority in FY2000, when caps on discretionary
funding will remain in place, and restore the funding in FY2001, when,
presumably, the caps will be adjusted upward.
! Rescissions of prior year funds: The Administration has proposed applying
$1.65 billion of rescissions of prior year defense funds to offset the FY2000
total. While it is quite common for the appropriations committees to make
such rescissions, the amount is relatively large. Moreover, congressional
committees usually identify such savings toward the end of the budget process
and use them to offset unexpected costs or to pay for congressional initiatives.

---

CRS-9
The Administration has not identified specific rescissions, but this has been
common practice in recent years — rather than propose cuts that might
aggravate some legislators, the Clinton Administration has preferred to
negotiate rescissions with congressional committees.
Congressional Action on the Defense Budget. In Congress, the debate over
the level of defense spending has been entwined in the broader debate about the
overall federal budget. For their part, members of the congressional defense
committees, with considerable support from other legislators, have called for
substantial increases to the military budget in addition to the increases the
Administration proposed. They have also, however, been critical of the accounting
mechanisms that the Administration employed to squeeze additional defense spending
under the discretionary spending caps. Meanwhile, Congress has, for the present at
least, rejected an increase in the discretionary caps and has dismissed out of hand the
offsets to increased discretionary spending that the Administration proposed.
Concurrently, there has been a debate about the use of emergency supplemental
appropriations for Kosovo as a mechanism to increase funding for defense readiness.
The result has been a rather complicated series of steps in which funds apparently
added to the defense budget in one stage of the congressional process have been
eroded in following stages. The net effect is that Congress appears to moving toward
a very modest increase to the Administration’s defense request, some of which will
be absorbed by higher pay and benefits increases that Congress has approved. Here
is a brief play by play overview of the process to date:
! The congressional budget resolution for FY2000, H.Con.Res. 68, approved by
both chambers on April 15, provides $8.0 billion more in budget authority and
$2.5 billion more in outlays for national defense in FY2000 than the
Administration’s request (using Administration, not CBO, scoring of the
request). Over the five year FY2000-2004 period, the resolution projects
$27.9 billion more in budget authority and $5.3 billion more in outlays for
national defense than the Administration. Table 4 shows the congressional
plan compared to the Administration estimate and to the Congressional Budget
Office reestimate of the cost of the Administration projection. Two point
4
s
stand out — first, projected increases in defense spending in the later years of
the five-year period are not as large as in FY2000, and, second, there appears
to be a substantial mismatch in all years between increases in budget authority
and projected increases in defense outlays — the mismatch is especially severe
according to CBO estimates.
! Between $3.1 billion and $5.75 billion of the $8 billion increase in defense
budget authority in the FY2000 budget resolution will go simply to restore
money for offsets that Congress has rejected. None of the congressional
defense committees have agreed to the proposed $3.1 billion in split funding
for military construction, and neither SASC nor the Senate nor the House

4 CBO reestimates of the Administration’s defense budget typically involve minor differences
in counting budget authority levels, and larger differences in outlays.

---

CRS-10
Appropriations Committees accepted the proposed $1.65 billion in offsetting
rescissions.
Table 4: Congressional Budget Resolution Compared to
Administration National Defense Budget Plan
(current year dollars in billions)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Administration Request
Budget Authority
280.8 300.5 302.4 312.8 321.7 333.0
—
—
—
—
Outlays
274.1 282.1 292.1 304.0 313.8 331.4
—
—
—
—
President's Budget Reestimated by CBO
Budget Authority
280.5 300.2 302.0 312.4 321.2 332.6 344.4 357.0 370.0 383.5
Outlays
283.3 285.0 293.7 303.8 313.8 326.1 335.7 346.5 362.1 374.7
FY2000 Congressional Budget Resolution
Budget Authority
288.8 303.6 308.2 318.3 327.2 328.4 329.6 330.9 332.2 333.5
Outlays
276.6 285.9 291.7 303.6 313.5 316.7 315.1 313.7 317.1 318.0
Difference Compared to Request
Budget Authority
+8.0
+3.1
+5.8
+5.5
+5.5
-4.6
—
—
—
—
Outlays
+2.5
+3.8
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-14.7
—
—
—
—
Difference Compared to CBO Reestimate
Budget Authority
+8.3
+3.4
+6.2
+5.9
+6.0
-4.2 -14.8
-26.1 -37.8
-50.0
Outlays
-6.7
+0.9
-2.0
-0.2
-0.3
-9.4 -20.6
-32.8 -45.0
-56.7
Sources: House and Senate Budget Committees; Conference Report on the FY2000 Concurrent
Budget Resolution, H.Rept. 106- 91; Department of Defense.
! Congress found its own way of adding money to defense in spite of the
FY2000 discretionary spending caps by providing extra funds in the emergency
supplemental appropriations bill for Kosovo, H.R. 1141. In all, the bill
provides $14.9 billion in supplemental appropriations and makes $2.0 billion
in offsetting rescissions. Of the supplemental funding, about $11 billion is for
the Department of Defense (including funds for Central America disaster
assistance and disaster repairs at U.S. facilities), which is $5.3 billion more than
the Administration requested. Much of the added money is for programs that
normally would be financed in regular FY2000 defense and military
construction appropriations bills, including $1.8 billion for increased pay and
benefits and $3.1 billion for military readiness-related accounts and for
munitions purchases. Most of the added amounts are in “fast-spending”
accounts — i.e., accounts in which almost all new budget authority is actually
expended as outlays in the first year available. As a result, the added funds in
H.R. 1141 will considerably ease the apparent mismatch between budget
authority and outlays in the budget resolution.
! The extra $5 billion for defense in the Kosovo bill, however, is now being
tapped in the FY2000 appropriations process as an offset to defense funding

---

CRS-11
increases. The Senate-passed version of the FY2000 defense appropriations
bill, S. 1122, includes increases in various defense programs consistent with the
budget resolution and the defense authorization bills but then uses $1.8 billion
provided in the Kosovo bill for personnel and $3.1 billion in the Kosovo bill for
readiness and munitions as offsets for the increases (see Table A6 in the
Appendix). The net effect is that the added emergency defense appropriations
provided in the Kosovo bill have been used to provide most of the increase in
FY2000 defense spending without counting against the caps on FY2000
discretionary spending, thus freeing up more money for non-defense
discretionary programs. On June 8, the House leadership announced plans to
take a similar approach, and the allocation of funds to the defense
subcommittee was subsequently reduced -- the initial allocation, approved in
May, provided $270.3 billion, and the bill as reported by the full committee on
July 16 provides $266.1 billion, $4.2 billion lower. Part of the difference,
however, is made up by counting anticipated receipts from radio spectrum
sales of $2.6 billion as an offset to defense appropriations, so the amount
available to DOD and other agencies in the bill totals $268.7 billion
! In the longer term, projected increases in defense spending in the budget
resolution will mostly be taken up by the growing impact in future years of pay
and benefits increases that Congress added to the Administration request.
Increased Military Pay and Benefits
As noted earlier, the Administration proposed a package of pay and benefit
improvements for military personnel that will cost about $35 billion over the next six
years compared to earlier Administration plans. The package includes (1) pay raises
of 4.4% in FY2000 and 3.9% per year thereafter, (2) “pay table” reform to reward
promotions more than longevity, (3) repeal of the “Redux” retirement plan, restoring
benefits to 50% of base pay after 20 years of service, and (4) targeted pay and bonus
increases for particular skills. Table 5 shows Administration estimates of the six-year
cost. An additional $10 billion in operation and maintenance accounts is needed to
cover comparable pay raises for DOD civilian personnel through FY2005.
Table 5: Costs of Administration Pay and Benefits Initiatives
(millions of dollars)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Total
New Funding:
Military Pay Raises
846
1,437
1,995
2,592
3,263
3,932
14,066
Pay Table Reform
196
809
836
868
902
937
4,548
Retirement Reform
796
888
983
1,049
1,082
1,153
5,951
Other Changes
1,170
1,503
1,579
1,521
1,522
1,620
8,915
Total New Funding
3,008
4,637
5,393
6,030
6,770
7,632
33,480
Reapplied Savings
323
321
321
321
321
321
1,928
Total Program Changes
3,331
4,958
5,714
6,351
7,091
7,963
35,408
Source: Department of Defense.
The purpose of the proposed pay and benefit increases is to improve recruitment
and retention of military personnel. Both the Army and the Navy suffered recruiting

---

CRS-12
shortfalls in 1998, and all of the services have fallen somewhat short of retention goals
recently. In the past, military pay raises, like pay raises for civilian federal personnel,
have been pegged to ½% below the Employment Cost Index (ECI), a measure of
overall compensation trends in the economy. As a result, military pay is now about
13% below the level it would have reached if pay raises since 1982 had equaled the
ECI. Some refer to this as the military “pay gap,” though it is simply a measure of
trends since 1982 — independent comparisons of military pay scales with the civilian
economy generally have not confirmed a shortfall of that magnitude. The
Administration’s proposed pay raises are 0.1% above the ECI in FY2000 and at the
projected ECI in the future.
On February 24, the Senate passed S. 4, a bill entitled the “Soldiers’, Sailors’,
Airmen’s, and Marines’ Bill of Right Act of 1999,” that would provide a substantially
larger pay and benefits package than the Administration has proposed. The bill would
implement the Administration proposals and in addition (1) provide a 4.8% pay raise
in FY2000 and peg raises to ½% above ECI thereafter, (2) allow personnel to choose
a $30,000 bonus instead of shifting out of the Redux retirement plan, (3) provide a
subsistence allowance of $180 per month to personnel eligible for food stamps, (4)
make uniformed personnel eligible for the Thrift Savings Plan now available to civilian
federal employees, and (4) significantly increase Montgomery G.I. Bill educational
benefits. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, S. 4 will cost about
$9 billion more over the FY2000-2005 period than the Administration plan.5 While
the Senate voted overwhelmingly for S. 4, the House did not act on a military pay and
benefits bill as a freestanding measure, and instead pay and benefits improvements
have been considered as part of the FY2000 defense authorization bill.
Authorization and appropriations action: House and Senate versions of the
defense authorization bill both include larger pay and benefits increases than the
Administration requested. The SASC version of the bill included all of the
provisions of S. 4 except for GI Bill benefits. In action on the floor, the Senate
approved an amendment by Senator Cleland to approve the expansion of GI Bill
benefits, as provided in S. 4. Pay and benefit provisions in the HASC version of
the authorization were identical to those in the SASC bill with two exceptions:
(1) HASC provided for future raises equal to the ECI rather than ½% higher and
(2) HASC did not approve providing the Thrift Savings Plan to uniformed
personnel but instead required a DOD study of the proposal. On the floor,
however, the House approved an amendment by Rep. Buyer, the chair of the
HASC military personnel subcommittee, to provide the same Thrift Savings Plan
benefits as the Senate. Pay and benefits increases are legislative matters to be
considered in the defense authorization bill, not in appropriations measures,
though the amount of money provided for military personnel in the
appropriations bill is directly affected by any changes. The Kosovo supplemental
appropriations bill, H.R. 1141, provided $1.838 billion for FY2000 pay and
5 See testimony of Christopher Jehn, Assistant Director, National Security Division,
Congressional Budget Office, before the Senate Armed Services Committee Personnel
Subcommittee, March 3, 1999. CBO estimates the cost of the Administration plan as $14
billion over five years and the cost of S. 4 as $23 billion, compared to a baseline that assumes
raises equal to the ECI.

---

CRS-13
benefits increases, enough to cover the Administration estimate of the costs of
the Administrations 4.4% pay raise, pay table reform, and retirement reform.
Later, the regular FY2000 defense appropriations bills, as approved in the House
and the Senate, have sufficient funding for the larger congressional pay and
benefits packages.
Ballistic Missile Defense
The Administration’s FY2000-2005 long-term defense plan includes several
important initiatives on missile defense policy, including (1) a decision to provide a
total of $10.5 billion, an increase of $6.6 billion, over the FY1999-2005 period to
fully fund preparations to deploy a national missile defense (NMD) system beginning
as early as 2003-2005; (2) a decision to accelerate the Navy Theater Wide (NTW)
system to allow it to compete with the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system for the “upper tier” theater missile defense (TMD) role for deployment as early
as 2007; and (3) a decision to restructure the Medium Extended Air Defense System
(MEADS) to limit costs. In announcing these decisions on January 20, Secretary of
Defense Cohen acknowledged that the threat of long-range missile attack on U.S.
territory appeared to be materializing sooner than earlier intelligence assessments had
estimated. In particular, Secretary Cohen cited North Korea’s test last year of a
multistage missile as evidence of the danger, and he endorsed the findings of the
Rumsfeld Commission, which reported last August that rogue states could threaten
the United States directly with long-range missiles within the next five years and
without much advanced warning.
The change in the Administration’s threat assessment was ultimately reflected
in its decision not to oppose an amended version of S. 257, a bill sponsored by
Senators Cochran and Inouye that calls for deploying a nationwide missile defense as
soon as technologically possible. Last year, the Administration opposed an essentially
identical bill, and the Senate twice narrowly rejected cloture motions to bring it to a
vote. This year, the Administration relented after amendments were added, including
a statement of policy that the United States seeks continued negotiated reductions in
Russian nuclear forces and a provision that the Secretary of Defense must determine
that the system will be operationally effective. The Senate passed the bill by a vote
of 97-3 on March 17. On March 18, by a vote of 317-105, the House passed H.R.
4, a bill stating simply that it is U.S. policy to deploy a nationwide defense. On May
18, the Senate took up H.R. 4 and substituted the text of S. 257. On May 20, by a
vote of 345-17 the House approved the Senate version, thus clearing the bill for the
White House, and the bill was sent to the President on July 12.
Although the Administration no longer opposes these measures, officials insist
that policy remains what it was — to decide by mid-2000 whether to deploy a system
and, if a decision to deploy is made, to pursue deployment as the technology permits.
Officials had said that deployment could begin as early as three years after a decision
is made to go ahead — i.e., by 2003 — but it now appears more likely that
deployment could begin in 2005 at the earliest. Moreover, the Administration still
argues that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty remains critically important
to U.S. security. Senior officials have said that they will endeavor to negotiate
changes in the Treaty with Russia to permit deployment of a nationwide defense.
Many Members of Congress, however, oppose continued adherence to the ABM

---

CRS-14
Treaty as an unnecessary constraint. There also continues to be some debate in
Congress about missile defense technology. Some legislators support a Heritage
Foundation proposal to deploy a sea-based nationwide defense. Defense officials
have said that such a system would be too costly. Also, a sea-based system would
clearly be incompatible with continued adherence even to an amended version of the
ABM Treaty.
Authorization and appropriations action: With the passage of H.R. 4, and its
likely signature by the President, Congress has officially committed the nation
to deploy a national missile defense (NMD) system, though the policy remains
a matter of some contention. Theater Missile Defense (TMD) programs have
been the main focus of debate in action on FY2000 defense funding bills. The
Senate-passed authorization bill includes a legislative provision that rejects the
Administration plan to combine the Navy Theater Wide and THAAD programs
in the future, requiring, instead, that the programs remain separately funded.
Both the House and the Senate bills add funds for PAC-3 system R&D and for
international cooperative programs. The Senate authorization also adds funds
for the related Space-Based Infrared System — High (SBIRS-High), while the
House bill transfers most funding for SBIRS from the Air Force to the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization. These steps reflect congressional displeasure with
Air Force plans to slow the SBIRS-High development program. The Senate
authorization also mandates specific tests of the Airborne Laser system, a sign
of the SASC’s continued doubts about the program. Table A4 in the Appendix
provides a detailed list of missile defense programs, requested funding, and
congressional action. In floor action, the Senate reduced funding for National
Missile Defense by $50 million from the SASC-approved level as an offset for
F-15 procurement.
Military Action in Yugoslavia and Forces in Haiti
During the week of May 17, both the House and the Senate approved H.R 1141,
providing supplemental appropriations for military operations against Yugoslavia
through the end of the fiscal year on September 30. DOD officials have said that the
amounts provided in the bill will be sufficient to cover the costs of the 78 days of the
air campaign plus peacekeeping costs through September 30, though money may have
to be reprogrammed to reflect the changing nature of the military mission. The
Administration has not provided revised estimates of the costs since the air campaign
ended, nor has it yet provided estimates of possible future costs of Kosovo-related
peacekeeping operations. Costs of U.S. participation in a peacekeeping mission could
well exceed $2 billion a year.
Authorization and appropriations action: The HASC version of the defense
authorization included a controversial provision that would prohibit the use of
any funds in the bill for operations in Yugoslavia and that would direct the
Administration to request supplemental funds if operations continue into
FY2000. There was extensive debate about this provision during the HASC
markup of the bill, and opponents said they would offer a floor amendment to
delete the provision. Subsequently, the White House sent a letter to the House
Speaker explicitly threatening to veto the measure if it included the provision.
The House Rules Committee then ordered the provision removed in the version

---

CRS-15
of the bill to be considered on the floor. Several Members opposed this decision,
however, and their opposition was one factor in the leadership’s decision to
withdraw the proposed rule on May 27. Subsequently, the authorization was
brought to the floor with a revised rule. On June 9 the House approved an
amendment by Rep. Skelton to remove the provision, but only after the Speaker
received a letter from the White House promising to seek additional
supplemental funding for peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. Operations in
Yugoslavia were also an issue in the Senate. In a key vote on May 25, by 52-48,
the Senate tabled an amendment to the authorization bill by Senator Specter to
direct the President to seek approval from Congress prior to the introduction of
ground troops in Kosovo except for peacekeeping purposes. And in a second
key vote on May 26, the Senate rejected by a margin of 77-22 an amendment by
Senator Bob Smith to cut off funding for operations on Oct. 1, 1999, unless
Congress authorizes continued spending. The House Appropriations Committee
version of the defense appropriations bill provides $1.8 billion for operations in
the Persian Gulf and Bosnia, but the committee did not act on funding for
Kosovo peacekeeping operations. The HAC funding is $575 million below the
request, reflecting, says the Committee report, the end of the Kosovo-related air
operation and a slower pace of air operations over Iraq.
The U.S. troop presence in Haiti was also an issue in the House. On June 9, the
House approved an amendment to the authorization bill by Rep. Goss
prohibiting the continuous deployment of U.S. forces in Haiti.
Base Closures
This year the Defense Department has once again urged Congress to approve
two more rounds of military base closures, one in 2001 and the second in 2005.
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 two 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.
Authorization and appropriations action: Neither the HASC nor the SASC
version of the authorization approves additional base closures. SASC narrowly
rejected an amendment in the committee markup by Senators Levin and McCain
to establish one more round in 2001, and the full Senate rejected their
amendment on May 26 by a vote of 60-40.
Major Weapons Programs and Military Service Unfunded Priorities
Lists
The House Appropriations Committee version of the defense appropriations bill
eliminates $1.8 billion requested to procure six F-22 fighter aircraft, though it
approves $1.2 billion to continue F-22 development. The committee report provides

---

CRS-16
an extensive rationale for a “procurement pause” in the F-22 program -- that the Air
Force has been financing the F-22 while suffering from severe and worsening
shortfalls in many other areas; that the F-22 has been experiencing technical problems;
that F-22 affordability is questionable, that costs have not been controlled, and that
future cost growth is likely; that the United States has an overwhelming numerical
advantage in advanced fighters without the F-22; and that there are many alternatives
to the F-22, particulary upgrades of the current generation F-15. In lieu of F-22
procurement, the committee proposed increased funding for Air Force personnel
recruitment and retention, for aircraft spare parts, for upgrades of a number of aircraft
programs, and for procuring 8 F-15E aircraft, 5 additional F-16s, and 8 KC-130-J
cargo aircraft for the Marine Corps. In statements to the press and in the full
committee markup of the defense bill, subcommittee leaders expressed a hope that the
F-22 decision will open a far-reaching discussion of long-term Air Force requirements
and priorities. For its part, the Air Force has begun a vigorous defense of the F-22,
arguing that even some currently available fighters in the world are more capable than
the F-15, that some future aircraft will be more capable still, and that a temporary
delay in F-22 procurement will increase program costs by $6 billion if suppliers are
forced to shut down and must restart production later. In the full committee, Rep.
Kingston offered and then withdrew an amendment to restore F-22 procurement
funds, and his amendment or a similar one may be proposed on the floor. Assuming
the full House does not overturn the HAC decision, F-22 production will be a major
issue in conference with the Senate.
Other weapons issues this year have been relatively muted. In response to a
request from the House Armed Services Committee, each of the military service chiefs
prepared a list of priority programs that are not funded in the Administration’s
FY2000 request and FY2000-2005 plan. The unfunded priorities amount to $8.7
billion in FY2000 and $45 billion over the FY2000-2005 period.6 This total is
somewhat higher than the $36 billion in unfunded requests that senior civilian DOD
officials acknowledged, reflecting changes since the budget review was completed.
In recent years, Congress has used similar lists from the services as a guide in
allocating additions to the Administration defense request. Of the $8.7 billion total for
FY2000, about $3.9 billion is for weapons procurement and R&D, including about
$760 million for the Air Force, $1.2 billion for the Army, $960 million for the Navy,
and $940 million for the Marine Corps.
Authorization and appropriations action: Both HASC and SASC approved
Administration funding requests for major tactical aircraft and ship-building
programs largely intact. While both committees added some funds for R&D on
B-2 bomber upgrades, these amounts were included in the Air Force list of
unfunded priorities, and procurement of additional aircraft is no longer an issue.
There may be some controversy, however, about some proposed additions to the
Administration request. In all SASC added $2.9 billion for procurement and
$1.5 billion for R&D to the Administration request; HASC added $2.6 billion for
procurement and $1.5 billion for R&D; and the Senate Appropriations
Committee added $2.7 billion for procurement and $2.1 billion for R&D, though
6 The lists are reprinted in Inside the Pentagon, March 4, 1999, pp. 1, 12-23.

---

CRS-17
the procurement total was reduced by an unspecified amount to reflect funds
provided in FY1999 supplemental appropriations bills. See Tables A5 and A6
in the Appendix for a breakdown of committee action by title. Almost all of the
major additions are for items that are on service priority lists or that are included
in future service acquisition plans. All of the committees added funds for two
programs that have been matters of some debate in the past, C-130J aircraft and
LHD amphibious ship procurement. The Marine Corps included funds for two
KC-130Js in its unfunded priorities list; the Senate authorization adds funds for
two KC-130Js, the Senate appropriations adds funds for one KC-130J and one
EC-130J, and the House authorization added funds for 4 KC-130Js. As noted,
the HAC bill adds funds for 8 KC-130s.
The Senate provided $375 million and the House $15 million for advance
procurement of a new LHD-1 class amphibious ship. This ship, LHD-8, is,
however, included in the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan for purchase in
FY2005. The SASC approach, which Congress has used in the past, is to
provide about 25% of the cost initially and the remainder next year. This will
accelerate procurement and, according to proponents, could lower the cost of
the ship, now estimated at about $1.75 billion, by about $200 million.
Other major additions include (1) funds for 9 additional UH-60 Blackhawk
helicopters in the SASC bill and for 3 additional aircraft in the HASC bill and (2)
funds for 2 additional V-22 tilt rotor aircraft for the Marine Corps in the SASC
bill and for 1 more aircraft in the HASC bill. Significantly, neither the House nor
the Senate version of the defense authorization endorses additional funds for F-
15 aircraft procurement, but the Senate approved an amendment to the defense
appropriations bill by Senator Bond to allocate $220 million to purchase 4 F-
15Es, and the HAC bill provides $440 million for 8 F-15s. Initially, this became
an issue because Boeing has announced plans to shut down the production line
in St. Louis unless additional orders for the aircraft appear, either from foreign
governments of from the Air Force.
In one of the few ongoing debates over major weapons programs other than the
F-22, Senator Feingold offered two amendments to the defense authorization bill
on the F/A-18 E/F program. One, to ensure compliance with contract
specifications prior to the start of full-rate production, was approved by voice
vote on May 27. A second amendment, to place a cost cap on the program, was
rejected by a vote of 87-11 on May 27.
See Table A-2 in the appendix for a summary of congressional action on
selected major weapons programs.
Military Readiness
Perceived shortfalls in levels of military readiness have been a major impetus to
Administration and congressional support for higher levels of defense spending.
Secretary of Defense Cohen and all of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
acknowledged some readiness problems, including shortfalls in meeting recruiting
targets; problems in retaining skilled personnel; shortages of spare parts, training
munitions, and some other equipment; and, in general, strains caused by the ongoing

---

CRS-18
post-Cold War pace of military operations. There remains, however, much debate
about the extent of the problems and the adequacy of Administration and
congressional efforts to address them. One rationale for adding unrequested funding
for pay and benefits and for military readiness to the Kosovo supplemental bill (H.R.
1141), was to provide encouragement to troops and to bolster readiness accounts
beyond amounts likely to be available within constraints on discretionary spending in
the 1997 budget agreement.
Authorization and appropriations action: In addition to some $2.25 billion in
the Kosovo supplemental for readiness-related budget accounts, both the HASC
and the SASC authorization bills add more funds — HASC provides $2.8 billion
and SASC $1.2 billion more for operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts
than was requested. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, approved
an increase of just $626 million in the FY2000 appropriations bill, and the total
is to be reduced by amounts provided earlier in supplemental appropriations. In
contrast, the HAC bill provides $2.4 billion more than requested for O&M and
does not propose an offset. The main readiness-related issue this year has been
whether higher pay and benefits would adequately improve recruitment and
retention. Considerable debate remains about the state of readiness and the
likelihood that increased pay and benefits and added operating funds will solve
underlying problems. Neither the House nor the Senate has systematically
addressed factors that have led to a relatively high operational tempo in parts of
the military force. Unresolved issues include whether and how to limit the
number of overseas operations, forward presence requirements, and the
organizational ability of each of the services to respond to post-Cold War
deployments.
Cooperative Threat Reduction
The Administration requested $475.5 million for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which provides assistance to states of the former
Soviet Union in safeguarding nuclear materials, dismantling missiles and other
weapons, and in other demilitarization measures. Although the basic goals of the
program have been widely supported, there have, in the past, been disputes about the
size of the program, the pace of funding obligations, and particular programs to be
funded. In general, the House has been more critical of the program than the Senate.
Authorization and appropriations action: SASC approved the Administration
CTR request without change, though it trimmed funds for two related programs
in the Department of Energy, cutting the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention
from $30 million to $25 million, and the Nuclear Cities Initiative from $30
million to $15 million.. HASC reduced CTR funding for chemical weapons
demilitarization assistance dramatically, providing $24.6 million, $105.8 million
below the request. The CTR chemical weapons program, HASC said, should
not be directed at the expensive task of destroying weapons stocks, but instead
should support Russian efforts to ensure stockpile security. This mandate was
based in large part on a General Accounting Office evaluation of the CTR

---

CRS-19
program.7 HASC also proposed language making into permanent law various
restrictions on the program that have been inserted in annual bills, including
prohibitions on the use of funds for peacekeeping, housing, environmental
restoration, defense conversion, or job retraining. HAC followed the House
authorization with one exception -- it proposed adding $12 million for biological
weapons proliferation prevention.
Strategic Nuclear Force Levels
In defense authorization bills since FY1996, Congress has included a prohibition
on the retirement of strategic nuclear delivery systems below levels established by the
START I treaty until Russia ratifies the START II agreement. While there has been
some sentiment in the Defense Department for making further force reductions, the
cost of maintaining START I force levels has been relatively modest, so there has
been little opposition to the congressional mandate. This year, however, the Navy has
requested permission to plan for a reduction from 18 to 14 Trident ballistic missile
submarines in order to avoid costs of a refueling overhaul of the oldest vessels.
Authorization and appropriations action: The SASC bill includes a provision
allowing a reduction in the number of deployed Trident submarines from 18 to
14, but the Senate rejected a floor amendment by Senator Kerrey to repeal the
provision prohibiting the retirement of additional strategic nuclear forces until
Russia ratifies the START II treaty. The HASC bill includes a provision that
would permanently codify limits on the retirement of strategic systems unless
START II is approved, but would allow the President some flexibility to reduce
total force levels — the President would be allowed to restructure forces
provided the total force includes at least 98% of the 6,000 warheads allowed by
START I.
Emerging Threats
In recent years, more and more attention has been focused on new threats to
U.S. security, and especially on challenges that may directly endanger the U.S.
homeland. Earlier this year, the Senate Armed Services Committee established a new
subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities to focus on new challenges to U.S.
security.
Authorization and appropriations action: SASC established a new budget
account in the operation and maintenance title for “combatting terrorism.” The
purpose of the account is to consolidate funding for counter-terrorism programs
and increase their visibility. SASC provided $1.954 billion for the account,
adding about $120 million to amounts requested in various other parts of the
budget. HAC provided $50 million extra for counter-terrorism programs in a
general provision.
7 General Accounting Office, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Effort to Reduce Russian
Arsenals May Cost More, Achieve Less Than Planned, Report Number NSIAD-99-76, Apr.
13, 1999.

---

CRS-20
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. Last year, gender integrated training was a major issue. This year, a
congressionally mandated commission recommended that each of the military services
retain the authority to determine the level at which gender integrated training be
carried out, and the report appears to have quelled debate.
Authorization and appropriations action: HASC approved a measure to permit
abortions at military hospitals for women who are victims of rape or incest. An
amendment during the markup, however, requires that women must have filed
sexual abuse charges to make such a claim. Current law permits the use of
appropriated funds for abortions only if the life of the woman is in danger. On
May 26, the Senate rejected by 51-49 an amendment by Senators Murray and
Snowe to repeal the current law that prohibits U.S. military health care facilities
overseas from providing abortions for U.S. military personnel at private expense.
On June 9, the House rejected a similar amendment by Rep. Meek.
China Policy
Last year, Congress included several measures in the defense authorization bill
to limit technology transfers to China, including a provision transferring responsibility
for reviewing licenses for satellite exports from the Commerce Department to the
State Department. Policy toward China continues to be a matter of great concern in
Congress, especially in view of recent evidence of Chinese spying at nuclear weapons
labs. The House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and
Military/Commercial Concerns, chaired by Rep. Cox, released its report publicly on
May 25. The Committee recommends several measures to tighten restrictions on
technology exports to China.
Authorization and appropriations action: The HASC bill included limits on
military-to-military contacts with China and establishes a Center for the Study
of Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense University. The SASC bill
included measures to tighten security at Department of Energy labs. Several
significant amendments were proposed to the authorization bills in both the
House and the Senate in the wake of the Cox committee report. On May 27, the
Senate approved a Lott amendment to increase monitoring of the export of
advanced satellite technology, to require annual reports about Chinese military
capabilities against Taiwan, and to further strengthen security and
counterintelligence at Department of Energy facilities. The House added several
amendments, including a Cox/Dicks amendment codifying improvements in
DOD security and counterintelligence programs and a DeLay amendment
limiting the substance of U.S.-China military-to-military contacts. The House
rejected a Ryun amendment that would have imposed a two-year moratorium on
the DOD foreign visitors programs. Significantly, Rep. Spence did not offer an
amendment that the Administration strongly opposed to transfer responsibility
over nuclear weapons programs from the Department of Energy to the
Department of Defense. Oversight of DOE weapons programs remains a major,

---

CRS-21
unresolved issue, however, and conferees on the authorization bill may take
further action on the matter.
Legislation
Budget Resolution
H.Con.Res. 68 (Kasich)
A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels
for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2009. Ordered to be reported, March 18, 1999,
and reported by the House Budget Committee (H.Rept. 106-73), March 23, 1999.
Approved by the House (221-208), March 25, 1999.
S.Con.Res. 20 (Domenici)
An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal years 2000 through 2009. Reported by the
Senate Budget Committee (S.Rept. 106-27), March 19, 1999. Approved by the
Senate, with amendments, (55-44), March 25, 1999.
Missile Defense
H.R. 4 (Weldon)
A bill to declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a national
missile defense. Reported by the House Armed Services Committee, (H.Rept. 106-39,
Part I) and discharged from the House Committee on International Relations, March
2, 1999. Approved by the House (317-105), March 18, 1999. Senate took up H.R.
4 and substituted the text of S. 257, May 18, 1999. House approved the bill as
amended by the Senate (345-17), May 20, 1999.
S. 257 (Cochran)
A bill entitled, "The Cochran-Inouye National Missile Defense Act of 1999,"
stating that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a nationwide missile defense
as soon as technically feasible. Reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee
(S.Rept. 106-4), February 13, 1999. Considered in the Senate, March 11, 15, 16, and
17, 1999, and approved, with amendments (97-3), March 17, 1999. Senate took up
H.R. 4 and substituted the text of S. 257, May 18, 1999.
Supplemental Appropriations
H.R. 1141 (Young, C.W. Bill)
A bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. Reported by the Committee on
Appropriations (H.Rept. 106-64), March 17, 1999. Approved by the House. Senate
called up the bill, substituted the text of S. 544, and passed the amended bill (by
unanimous consent), March 25, 1999. Conference report filed (H.Rept. 106-143),
May 14, 1999. House agreed to conference report (269-158), May 18, 1999. Senate
agreed to conference report (64-36), May 20, 1999.

---

CRS-22
S. 544 (Stevens)
A bill making emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions for
recovery from natural disasters, and foreign assistance, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. Reported by the Committee on
Appropriations (S.Rept. 106-8), March 4, 1999. Considered in the Senate, March 17,
18, 19, 22, and 23, 1999. Approved by the Senate, March 23, 1999. Senate took up
H.R. 1141, substituted the text of S. 544, and passed H.R. 1411, as amended, March
25, 1999.
H.R. 1664 (Young, C.W. Bill)
A bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for military operations,
refugee relief, and humanitarian assistance relating to the conflict in Kosovo, and for
military operations in Southwest Asia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999,
and for other purposes. Reported by the Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 106-
125), May 4, 1999. Passed by the House, with amendments (311-105), May 6, 1999.
Defense Authorization
H.R. 1401 (Spence)
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the House
Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 106-162), May 19, 1999. Rules Committee
Resolution, H. Res. 195, reported to the House but then withdrawn, May 27, 1999.
S. 1059 (Warner)
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the Senate
Armed Services Committee, May 13, 1999. Report filed (S.Rept. 106-50), May 17,
1999. Considered by the Senate, May 24, 25, 26, and 27, 1999. Approved by the
Senate, with amendments (92-3), May 27, 1999.
Defense Appropriations
S. 1122 (Stevens)
A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 106-53), May 25, 1999. Considered by
the Senate, June 7-8, 1999. Approved by the Senate, as amended (93-4), June 8,
1999.
H.R. 2561 (Lewis, Jerry)
A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the
House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 106-244), July 16, 1999.

---

CRS-23
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 98018. China-U.S. Relations, by Kerry B. Dumbaugh.
CRS Issue Brief 10022. Defense Research: DOD's Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation Program, by John D. Moteff.
CRS Issue Brief 97002. The Department of Energy's Tritium Production Program,
by Richard E. Rowberg.
CRS Issue Brief 92035. F/A-18E/F Aircraft Program, by Bert H. Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 87111. F-22 Aircraft Program, by Bert H. Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 98041. Kosovo and U.S. Policy, by Steven Woehrel and Julie Kim.
CRS Issue Brief IB10027. Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations, by Steven
Bowman.
CRS Issue Brief 93103. Military Medical Care Services: Questions and Answers,
by Richard A. Best.
CRS Issue Brief 85159. Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues, by Robert L.
Goldich.
CRS Issue Brief IB10034. National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by Steven
A. Hildreth and Amy Woolf.
CRS Issue Brief 92115. Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress, by
Bert H. Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 98028. Theater Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by Robert D.
Shuey.
CRS Issue Brief 86103. V-22 Osprey Tilt-rotor Aircraft, by Bert H. Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief 81050. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance, by
Richard F. Grimmett.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL30056. Appropriations Supplemental for FY1999: Emergency
Funding in P.L. 105-277 for Agriculture, Embassy Security, Y2K Problems,
Defense, and Other Issues, by Larry Q. Nowels.
CRS Report 97-719. The Army Reserve Components: Strength and Force Structure
Issues, by Robert L. Goldich.

---

CRS-24
CRS Report RS20031. China and U.S. Missile Defense Proposals: Reactions and
Implications, by Robert G. Sutter.
CRS Report 97-933. China: Major Legislation in the 105th Congress, by Kerry B.
Dumbaugh.
CRS Report 98-802. China: Recent Policy Priorities -- Implications for U.S.
Interests and Policy Goals, by Robert G. Sutter.
CRS Report RL30220. China's Technology Acquisitions: Cox Committee's Report --
Findings, Issues, and Recommendations, 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 RL30061. Defense Budget for FY2000: Data Summary, by Mary
Tyszkiewicz and Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RL30002. A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary Tyszkiewicz and Stephen
Daggett.
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 RS20203. The Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative for the Former
Soviet Union: Administration Proposals for FY2000, by Amy Woolf and Curt
Tarnoff.
CRS Report RL30172. Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,
1798-1999, by Richard F. Grimmett.
CRS Report RS20125. Kosovo: Issues and Options for U.S. Policy, by Steven J.
Woehrel.
CRS Report RS20161. Kosovo Military Operations: Costs and Congressional
Action on Funding, by Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report 95-409. Long-range Bomber Facts: Background Information, by Jason
Woolwine and Dagnija Sterste-Perkins.
CRS Report RL30051. Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by David
E. Lockwood.

---

CRS-25
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 98-764. Military Pilot Retention: Issues and Options, by Michael C.
Ryan.
CRS Report 97-866. Military Readiness: Background to Congressional Debate over
Tiered Readiness, by Michael A. Longoria and Michael C. Ryan.
CRS Report 98-41. Military Readiness, Operations Tempo (Optempo) and Personnel
Tempo (Perstempo): Are U.S. Forces Doing Too Much?, by Michael C. Ryan.
CRS Report 98-765. Military Youth Programs: ChalleNGe and STARBASE, by
Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Report 98-751. Missile Defense: Theater High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) Flight Testing, by Steven A. Hildreth.
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 97-862. National Missile Defense: Status of the Debate, by Robert D.
Shuey.
CRS Report RS20052. National Missile Defense: The Alaska Option, by Steven A.
Hildreth.
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 97-981. Navy/DoD Projected Long-range (FY2004-FY2015) Ship
Procurement Rate: 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-26
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.
Other Resources
Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for
Fiscal Year 2000: A Preliminary Report, March 1999.
Congressional Budget Office, “Military Pay and Benefits,” Statement of Christopher
Jehn, Assistant Director National Security Division, before the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of
Representatives, February 25, 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.
U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Competitive Sourcing: Questions About
Goals, Pace, and Risks of Key Reform Initiative, Report No. NSIAD-99-46,
Feb. 22, 1999.
U.S. General Accounting Office, F-22 Aircraft: Issues in Achieving Engineering and
Manufacturing Development Goals, Report No. NSIAD-99-55, Mar. 15, 1999.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Future Years Defense Program: How Savings From
Reform Initiatives Affect DOD's 1999-2003 Program, Report No. NSIAD-99-
66, Feb. 25, 1999.
U.S. General Accounting Office, “Military Retirement: Proposed Changes Warrant
Careful Analysis,” testimony of Mark E. Gebicke, Director of Military
Operations and Capabilities Issues, before the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel, House Committee on Armed Services, Report No. T-NSIAD-99-94,
Feb. 25, 1999.

---

CRS-27
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/enter.htm]
House Armed Services Committee
[http://www.house.gov/hasc/]
Senate Armed Services Committee
[http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/]
CRS FY2000 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 & Budget
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html]
FY2000 Federal Budget Publications
[http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/budget/index.html]
Defense Department and Related Sites
Defense LINK
[http://www.defenselink.mil/]
Defense Issues (Indexed major speeches)
[http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/]
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) FY2000 Budget Materials
[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/FY2000budget/]
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/]

---

CRS-28
Navy On-Line Home Page
[http://www.navy.mil/index-real.html]
Navy Budget Resources Directory
[http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/budget]
Navy Public Affairs Library
[http://www.navy.mil/navpalib/.www/subject.html]
United States Marine Corps Home Page
[http://www.usmc.mil/]
AirForceLINK
[http://www.af.mil/]
Air Force Financial Management Home Page
[http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/SAFFM/]
Appendix A: Summary Tables
Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2000
(budget authority in billions of current year dollars)a
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
242.6
244.3
250.7
255.0
262.9
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2000, Feb. 1999, and prior years.
a. These figures represent current year dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities and contract
authority, and reflect subsequent rescissions and transfers.

---

Table A2: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs: FY2000 Authorization and Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY1999 Estimate
FY2000 Request
House Authorization
Senate Authorization
House Appropriations
Senate Appropriations
#
Proc.
R&D
#
Proc.
R&D
#
Proc.
R&D
#
Proc.
R&D
#
Proc.
R&D
#
Proc.
R&D
Army
Apache Longbow Upgrade
--
608.9
--
--
765.2
--
--
810.2
--
--
810.2
--
--
810.2
--
--
753.5
--
Comanche Helicopter
--
--
364.8
--
--
427.1
--
--
427.1
--
--
483.1
--
--
427.1
--
--
483.1
Blackhawk Helicopter
29
271.6
--
8
102.8
--
11
129.5
--
17
192.8
31.4
19
223.8
--
19
223.8
15.0
M1A2 Abrams Tank Upgrade
120
683.0
9.4
120
636.4
12.1
120
636.4
12.1
na
664.0
12.1
120
636.4
20.1
120
636.4
26.5
Bradley FVS Base Sustainment
--
363.2
70.4
--
336.4
3.2
--
415.5
3.2
--
417.7
3.2
--
420.4
3.2
--
342.4
3.2
Crusader
--
--
313.6
--
--
343.9
--
--
343.9
--
--
--
--
--
343.9
--
--
343.9
Navy/Marine Corps
AV-8B Harrier Aircraft
12
333.8
30.8
12
291.3
38.6
12
291.3
38.6
12
291.3
38.6
12
291.3
38.6
12
291.3
38.6
F/A-18E/F Hornet
30 2,870.6
206.5
36 2,854.2
142.6
36 2,854.2
142.6
36 2,854.2
142.6
36 2,854.2
182.6
36 2,858.2
142.6
V-22 Osprey Aircraft
7
683.9
345.8
10
916.9
182.9
11 1,016.9
182.9
12 1,039.9
182.9
11
976.9
182.9
12 1,039.9
191.9
DDG-51 Destroyer
3 2,659.0
155.9
3 2,681.7
176.0
3 2,681.7
176.0
3 2,681.7
176.0
3 2,681.7
176.0
3 2,681.7
176.0
New Attack Submarine (NSSN)
1 1,995.5
358.4
--
748.5
357.2
--
753.5
382.2
--
748.5
367.2
--
748.5
367.2
--
748.5
367.2
LPD-17 Amphibious Transport
1
636.9
1.3
2 1,508.3
2.6
2 1,508.3
2.6
2 1,508.3
2.6
2 1,508.3
2.6
2 1,508.3
2.6
LHD-8 Advance Procurement
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
15.0
--
1
375.0
--
--
--
--
--
500.0
--
ADC(X) Auxiliary Cargo Ship
--
--
--
1
440.0
--
1
440.0
--
1
440.0
--
1
440.0
--
1
440.0
--
Air Force
B-2 Bomber Post-Production
--
238.6
131.0
--
167.4
201.8
--
202.4
353.8
--
167.4
238.8
--
136.0
344.2
--
167.4
238.8
C-17 Airlift Aircraft
13 1,891.0
118.2
15 3,385.0
170.7
15 3,388.5
170.7
15 3,385.0
170.7
15 2,972.7
--
15 3,385.0
170.7
C-130 Aircraft (incl. other services)
7
493.5
--
--
42.9
--
4
294.9
--
2
226.9
--
8
774.8
43.6
2
219.8
--
E-8C Joint Stars Aircraft
2
495.5
100.5
1
280.3
130.5
1
326.3
160.5
1
326.3
185.7
2
468.5
162.0
1
326.3
130.5
F-15 Aircraft
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
375.0
--
8
440.0
152.7
4
220.0
--
F-16 Aircraft
1
67.0
139.6
10
282.6
112.5
10
280.1
112.5
10
282.6
126.9
15
404.6
127.5
12
356.6
118.5
F-22 Aircraft
2
769.1 1,571.0
6 1,852.1 1,222.2
6 1,852.1
1,222.2
6 1,852.1
1,222.2
0
0.0
1,222.2
6 1,852.1 1,222.2
Joint/Defense-Wide
Airborne Laser (AF)
--
--
257.3
--
--
308.6
--
--
308.6
--
--
308.6
--
--
308.6
--
--
308.6
Joint Strike Fighter (AF, Navy)
--
--
923.3
--
--
476.9
--
--
506.9
--
--
491.9
--
--
576.6
--
--
491.6
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMDO)
--
311.4 3,294.3
--
355.9 2,944.5
--
300.9
3,311.0
--
415.9
3,283.6
--
355.9
2,970.0
--
360.9 3,405.6
Space-Based Infrared System (AF)
--
--
731.6
--
--
557.7
--
--
557.7
--
--
649.7
--
--
557.7
--
--
699.7
Guard & Reserve Equipment*
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
60.0
--
--
--
--
--
130.0
--
--
--
300.0
*Notes: All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. For Ballistic Missile Defense, the military construction request is $1.4 million, which is often reported as part of the total
elsewhere. For a full breakdown of Ballistic Missile Defense funding, see Table A4.

---

CRS-30
Table A3: National Defense Budget Function by Appropriations Title
Under Administration Projections
(budget authority, current year dollars in billions)
Est.
Proj.
Proj.
Proj.
Proj.
Proj.
Proj.
FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005
Military Personnel
70.9
73.7
76.3
78.4
80.9
83.7
86.7
Operation & Maintenance
98.1
103.5
103.9
105.0
107.8
111.2
114.4
Procurement
49.0
53.0
61.8
62.3
66.6
69.2
75.1
RDT&E
36.6
34.4
34.3
34.7
34.5
35.0
34.2
Military Construction
5.1
2.3
7.1
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.8
Family Housing
3.6
3.1
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.9
Other
-0.7
-2.9
-0.8
0.1
0.9
0.1
-0.3
Subtotal, DOD
262.6
267.2
286.4
288.3
298.7
307.6
318.9
Atomic Energy Defense
12.5
12.4
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.8
Activities
Other Defense-Related
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
Activities
Total, National Defense
276.2
280.8
300.5
302.4
312.8
321.7
333.0
Source: FY1999-2004 from Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the
United States Government, Fiscal Year 2000, Feb. 1999; FY2005 from Department of Defense.

---

CRS-31
Table A4: Ballistic Missile Defense Funding
(millions of dollars)
Con-
Con-
FY1999 FY2000 House
Senate
House
Senate
ference
ference
Est.
Req.
Auth.
Auth.
Approp. Approp.
Auth.
Approp.
Procurement
Patriot PAC-3
245.5
300.9
300.9
360.9
--
300.9
360.9
--
TMD Battle-Management
22.8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
& C3
Navy Area Defense
43.2
55.0
0.0
55.0
--
55.0
0.0
--
TOTAL Procurement
311.5
355.9
300.9
415.9
--
355.9
360.9
--
RDT&E:
Applied Research
62173C Support Technologies
97.4
65.3
95.3
84.3
--
80.3
90.3
--
Advanced Technology Development
63173C Support Technologies
272.8
173.7
198.7
213.7
--
196.3
215.7
--
Demonstration and Validation
63861C THAAD Dem/Val
433.9
34.1
34.1
19.1
--
527.9
527.9
--
63868C Navy Theater Wide
364.3
329.8
329.8
449.8
--
419.8
379.8
--
63869C MEADS Concepts
9.9
48.6
48.6
48.6
--
0.0
48.6
--
63870C Boost Phase Intercept
6.4
--
--
--
--
--
20.0
--
63871C National Missile
1,533.5
836.6
835.9
836.6
--
761.6
986.6
--
Defense*
63872C Joint Theater Missile
200.1
195.7
195.7
200.7
--
200.7
215.7
--
Defense
63873C Family of Systems
95.7
141.8
141.8
141.8
--
141.8
136.8
--
Eng. & Integration
63874C BMD Technical
184.8
190.7
200.7
193.7
--
200.7
193.7
--
Operations
63875C International
58.9
36.7
61.7
51.7
--
36.7
78.7
--
Cooperative Programs
63876C Threat and
23.3
16.5
16.5
16.6
--
16.5
20.5
--
Countermeasures
63xxxC Space-Based Infrared
--
--
110.0
--
--
--
--
--
Architecture
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
64218C Upper Tier
--
--
90.0
--
--
--
--
--
64861C THAAD EMD
--
577.5
472.5
577.5
--
0.0
0.0
--
64865C Patriot PAC-3 EMD
320.8
29.1
77.6
181.1
--
77.6
181.1
--
64867C Navy Area Defense
242.6
268.4
323.4
268.4
--
310.2
310.2
--
EMD
64xxxC Space-Based Infrared
--
--
168.7
--
--
--
--
--
System -- High
TOTAL RDT&E
3,844.6 2,944.4
3,401.0
3,283.5
--
2,970.0 3,405.6
--
Military Construction
10.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
--
1.4
1.4
--
TOTAL Ballistic Missile
4,166.1 3,301.7
3,703.3
3,700.8
--
3,335.9 3,767.9
--
Defense Organization
Related Programs
12419A Aerostat Joint Project
14.6
24.9
24.9
24.9
--
24.9
24.9
--
Office
63319F Airborne Laser
265.7
308.6
308.6
308.6
--
308.6
308.6
--
Program
63876F Space-Based Laser
--
63.8
63.8
88.8
--
35.0
73.8
--
63441F Space-Based Infrared
--
151.4
41.4
151.4
--
0.0
151.4
--
Architecture
64441F Space-Based Infrared
539.4
328.7
160.0
420.7
--
328.7
420.7
--
System -- High
64442F Space-Based Infrared
33.2
77.7
77.7
77.7
--
229.0
127.7
--
System -- Low
Sources: Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1): Fiscal Year 2000, February 1999; S.Rept. 106-50;
H.Rept. 106-162; S.Rept. 106-53.

---

CRS-32
Notes: *NMD total for FY1999 includes $1 billion in supplemental funding provided in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for FY1999 (P.L. 105-277). These funds will actually be allocated over 3 years, through
FY2001. Senate total for NMD reflects a $50 million reduction in a floor amendment.
Table A5: Congressional Action on Defense Authorization by Title
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
HASC
HASC
Versus
SASC
SASC
Versus
Request*
Auth.
Request
Request*
Auth.
Request
Military Personnel*
73,723.3
72,115.4
-1,607.9
73,723.3
73,531.1
-192.2
Operation & Maintenance
103,532.4
106,343.4
+2,811.0
103,548.4 104,721.7
+1,173.3
Procurement
53,020.5
55,598.5
+2,578.0
53,020.5
55,949.4
+2,928.9
Research & Development
34,375.2
35,835.7
+1,460.5
34,375.2
35,839.7
+1,464.5
Military Construction
2,298.2
4,963.5
+2,665.3
2,322.8
5,150.7
+2,827.9
Family Housing
3,140.2
3,626.8
+486.5
3,115.7
3,638.7
+523.0
Revolving & Management Funds
388.0
396.0
+8.0
372.0
340.0
-32.0
Offsetting Receipts
-1,888.0
-1,888.0
0.0
-1,888.0
-1,888.0
0.0
Allowance for Rescissions
-1,650.0
-1,650.0
0.0
-1,650.0
0.0
+1,650.0
Total Department of Defense
266,939.9
275,341.3
+8,401.3
266,939.9 277,283.3 +10,343.4
Dept. of Energy Defense-Related
12,360.4
12,284.8
-75.5
12,360.4
12,190.4
-170.0
Defense-Related Activities
1,222.3
1,172.7
-49.6
1,222.3
1,172.7
-49.6
Kosovo Supplemental Offset*
-1,838.0
-1,838.0
Total National Defense
280,522.6
288,798.7
+8,276.2
280,522.6 288,808.3
+8,285.8
Sources: H.Rept. 106-162; S.Rept. 106-50.
*Notes: Request is shown differently by each committee, but in each case reflects the Congressional Budget
Office reestimate of the Administration proposal. HASC included a $1.838 billion offset from the Kosovo
supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1141, P.L. 106-31) in the Military Personnel account, while SASC
showed the offset separately. Amounts do not reflect floor action.
Table A6: Congressional Action on Defense Appropriations by Title
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY1999
HAC
Versus
Senate
Versus
Enacted
Request*
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Military Personnel
70,607.6
73,723.3
72,012.0
-1,711.3
73,855.1
+131.8
Operation & Maintenance*
84,042.8
91,268.2
93,688.8
+2,420.5
91,894.3
+626.1
Procurement
48,590.4
51,851.5
53,031.4
+1,179.9
54,532.0
+2,680.5
Research & Development
36,756.7
34,375.2
37,167.6
+2,792.4
36,455.7
+2,080.5
Revolving & Management Funds
802.9
512.0
820.0
+308.0
512.0
0.0
Defense Health & Other*
11,797.7
12,932.6
12,884.0
-48.6
13,262.0
+329.4
Related Agencies
358.6
381.5
376.5
-5.0
401.5
+20.0
General Provisions*
-2,436.1
-1,778.5
-1,318.6
+459.9
-6,219.6
-4,441.1
Total Department of Defense
250,520.5
263,266.0 268,661.7
+5,395.7 264,693.0
+1,427.1
Sources: S.Rept. 106-53. House Appropriations Committee, “Committee Print” of bill report, July 16, 1999.
*Notes: Request reflects the Congressional Budget Office reestimate of the Administration proposal. SAC
general provisions include offsets from FY1999 supplemental appropriations of $1.838 billion applied to the
military personnel account and $3.1 billion applied to the operation and maintenance and procurement accounts.
The amounts shown for the operation and maintenance account in the appropriations bills differ from amounts
shown in the authorization bills because of several differences in where funding for various programs is
provided in the bills. The main difference is that the appropriations bills show funding for defense health in
a separate title, while the authorization bills include defense health funding in operation and maintenance.

---