Appropriations for FY2001: Defense

Congressional research reportJan 12, 2001

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL30505

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY2001: Defense

Updated January 12, 2001

(name redacted)

Specialist in National Defense

Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget

resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and

budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is

bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program

authorizations.

This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers

each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate

Defense Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative status of the

bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists

the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.

This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially

following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.

NOTE: A Web version of this document with

active links is available to congressional staff at

[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]

Appropriations for FY2001: Defense

Summary

House and the Senate action on annual FY2001 defense funding was completed

in December when Congress approved the FY2001 omnibus appropriations bill. In

all, Congress provided about $310.0 billion for national defense, including $287.8

billion in the Department of Defense Appropriations bill. The national defense total

is about $4.7 billion above the Administration’s request.

The conference agreement on the FY2001 Labor-HHS-Education

Appropriations/Omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 4577, approved in the House and

Senate on December 15, provides some additional FY2001 funds for the Department

of Defense, including $150 million to repair the USS Cole, $100 million for classified

programs related to operations overseas, and $43.5 million for military construction.

Section 1403 of the bill also makes an across-the-board cut of 0.22% in all FY2001

discretionary funds, including defense, though military personnel funding is exempted

from the reduction. In all, this will reduce FY2001 defense funding by $520 million.

On October 11, the House approved an a conference agreement on the FY2001

defense authorization bill, H.R. 4205, by a vote of 382-31. The Senate approved the

agreement on October 12 by a vote of 90-3. The President signed the bill into law on

October 30 (P.L. 106-398). A conference agreement on the defense appropriations

bill, H.R. 4576, was approved in the House on July 19 and in the Senate on July 27,

and the President signed the bill on August 9 (P.L. 106-259). Earlier the House and

the Senate approved a conference agreement on the FY2001 military construction

appropriations bill, H.R. 4425, and the President signed the measure into law on July

13 (P.L. 106-246). This bill includes supplemental appropriations for FY2000

military operations in Kosovo and Colombia, for increased fuel and medical care

costs, and for some other defense programs.

In action on key issues, authorization conferees agreed to (1) provide a

permanent guarantee of health care for Medicare-eligible military retirees that was

included in the Senate bill, but that expired after two years; (2) provide compensation

for workers made ill by exposure to toxic materials in the nation’s nuclear weapons

program; (3) drop a House-passed provision mandating troop withdrawals from

Kosovo if allies do not meet burdensharing commitments (though the bill includes

extensive reporting requirements); and (4) drop anti-hate crimes legislation that was

attached to the Senate-passed bill. The retiree health care measure will make all

military retirees eligible for health care through the military health care system.

Conferees also agreed to a comprehensive retail and mail-order pharmacy benefit.

According to preliminary CBO estimates, the bill’s retiree health care provisions will

cost $40 billion more over the next 10-years than benefits DOD currently provides.

Several major weapons programs also received attention in this year’s defense

debate. The authorization and appropriations conference agreements reduced funding

for the Joint Strike Fighter because of program delays. The authorization and

appropriations bills also approved additional funding for the Army’s “transformation”

plan, including funds to equip a second medium-weight brigade in FY2001. The

authorization conference, however, included a requirement that the Army carry out

additional comparative testing of armored vehicles before outfitting a third brigade.

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise

Name

CRS Division

Telephone

Acquisition

Valerie Grasso

FDT

7-....

Aerospace Forces

(name redacted)

FDT

7-....

Arms Sales

Richard Grimmett

FDT

7-....

Base Closure; Acquisition

David Lockwood

FDT

7-....

Bombers

Dagnija Sterste-Perkins

FDT

7-....

Defense Budget

(name redacted)

FDT

7-....

Defense Budget

Mary Tyszkiewicz

FDT

7-....

Defense Industry

Gary Pagliano

FDT

7-....

Defense R&D

Michael Davey

RSI

7-....

Defense R&D

Richard Nunno

RSI

7-....

Defense R&D

John Moteff

RSI

7-....

Ground Forces

Edward Bruner

FDT

7-....

Ground Forces

Steven Bowman

FDT

7-....

Intelligence

Richard Best

FDT

7-....

Military Construction

Mary Tyszkiewicz

FDT

7-....

Military Personnel

David Burrelli

FDT

7-....

Missile Defense

Robert Shuey

FDT

7-....

Missile Defense

Steven Hildreth

FDT

7-....

Naval Forces

Ronald O’Rourke

FDT

7-....

Nuclear Weapons

Jonathan Medalia

FDT

7-....

Peace Operations

Nina Serafino

FDT

7-....

Personnel; Reserves

Robert Goldich

FDT

7-....

Strategic Forces

Amy Woolf

FDT

7-....

War Powers

David Ackerman

ALD

7-....

War Powers

(name redacted)

G&F

7-....

War Powers

Richard Grimmett

FDT

7-....

Abbreviations:

FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

G&F = Government and Finance Division

RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Contents

Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Overview of the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Overall Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Key Aspects of the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The $60 Billion Procurement Target and the Defense

“Train Wreck” Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Military Service “Unfunded Priorities Lists” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Key Issues in Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Level of Defense Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Defense Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

National Missile Defense (NMD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

C-17 and C-130 Cargo Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

F-15 and F-16 Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

F/A-18E/F, F-22, and Joint Strike Fighter Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

V-22 “Osprey” Tilt-Rotor Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Shipbuilding Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Army “Transformation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Department of Energy Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Cooperative Threat Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Military Operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Colombia, and the Persian Gulf . . 26

Navy Live-Fire Testing at Vieques, Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Social Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Base Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

China Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

The Revolution in Military Affairs/Unmanned Combat Systems . . . . . . . . 29

Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Defense Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Other Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix A: Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

List of Tables

Table 1. Status of FY2001 Defense Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. National Defense Budget Function and Department of Defense

Budget, Administration Projections, FY1998-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 3: FY2001 Defense Appropriations, Congressional Action by Title . . . . 13

Table 4: FY2001 National Defense Funding by Appropriations Bill . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 5: Estimated Costs of Military Retiree Health Care Provisions . . . . . . . . 17

Table 6: Congressional Action on FY2001 Joint Strike Fighter Funding . . . . . . 22

Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table A2. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs,

FY2001: Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table A3. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs,

FY2001: Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table A4. Ballistic Missile Defense Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table A5. National Defense Budget Request by Appropriations Bill . . . . . . . . 42

Table A6. National Defense Budget Function Funding in the

Congressional Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table A7. Administration National Defense Budget Function Projection

by Appropriations Title, Budget Authority, FY1999-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table A8: FY2000 Supplemental Appropriations for the

Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appropriations for FY2001: Defense

Most Recent Developments

On December 15, both the House and the Senate approved a conference

agreement on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, H.R. 4577, which also

incorporates other appropriations measures. The bill makes an across-the-board cut

of about $520 million in FY2001 defense funding but also provides about $300

million more for some defense programs. Earlier, on October 6, House and Senate

conferees announced an agreement on the FY2001 defense authorization bill, H.R.

4205/S. 2549. The House approved the agreement by a vote of 382-31 on October

11, and the Senate approved the measure by a vote of 90-3 on October 11. By a vote

of 84-9, the Senate waived a point of order that the cost of the bill’s retiree health

care provisions exceeds limits on long-term mandatory spending. The President

signed the bill into law (P.L. 106-398) on October 30. On August 9, the President

signed the FY2001 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 4576, into law (P.L. 106-259),

and on July 13, the President signed the FY2001 military construction

appropriations bill, H.R. 4425 (P.L. 106-246). The military construction bill

incorporates FY2000 supplemental appropriations for military operations in Kosovo

and elsewhere, for counterdrug assistance to Colombia, and for some other defense

programs.

Background

Congress provides funding for national defense programs in several annual

appropriations measures, the largest of which is the defense appropriations bill.

Congress also acts every year on a national defense authorization bill, which

authorizes programs funded in all of the regular appropriations measures. The

authorization bill addresses defense programs in almost precisely the same level of

detail as the defense-related appropriations, and congressional debate about major

defense policy and funding issues usually occurs mainly in action on the authorization.

Because the defense authorization and appropriations bills are so closely related,

this report tracks congressional action on both measures.

The annual defense appropriations bill provides funds for military activities of the

Department of Defense (DOD) — including pay and benefits of military personnel,

operation and maintenance of weapons and facilities, weapons procurement, and

research and development — and for other purposes. Most of the funding in the bill

is for programs administered by the Department of Defense, though the bill also

provides (1) relatively small, unclassified amounts for the Central Intelligence Agency

retirement fund and intelligence community management, (2) classified amounts for

national foreign intelligence activities administered by the CIA and by other agencies

as well as by DOD, and (3) very small amounts for some other agencies. Five other

CRS-2

appropriations bills also provide funds for national defense activities of DOD and

other agencies including:

the military construction appropriations bill, which finances

construction of military facilities and construction and operation of

military family housing, all administered by DOD;

! the energy and water development appropriations bill, which

funds atomic energy defense activities administered by the

Department of Energy;

the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill, which

finances civil defense activities administered by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency, activities of the Selective Service

System, and support for National Science Foundation Antarctic

research;

the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which funds

national security-related activities of the FBI, the Department of

Justice, and some other agencies; and

the transportation appropriations bill, which funds some defenserelated activities of the Coast Guard.

The Administration’s FY2001 budget includes $305.4 billion for the national defense

budget function, of which $284.3 billion is requested in the defense appropriations

bill. See Table A4 in the appendix for a breakdown of the Administration national

defense budget function request by appropriations bill.

Status

Action on major defense funding bills is coming to a close this year. So far, the

President has signed into law the FY2001 defense appropriations, the FY2001 military

construction appropriations, and, as part of the military construction bill, FY2000

supplemental appropriations. A conference agreement on the annual defense

authorization has not yet been reached, but it is expected imminently. Action on

major defense bills to date includes the following:

FY2001 congressional budget resolution: The House Budget

Committee marked up its version of the annual budget resolution,

H.Con.Res. 290, on March 14, and the full House passed a modified

version on March 23. The House measure recommended $306.3

billion in budget authority ($307.3 billion in discretionary funding)

for the national defense budget function. The Senate Budget

Committee ordered its version of the bill, S.Con.Res. 101, to be

reported on March 30, recommending $305.8 billion for national

defense. On the floor, the Senate approved an amendment that

added $4 billion to the total, and the Senate passed the amended

measure, recommending $309.8 billion for defense, on April 7. On

CRS-3

April 13, both the House and the Senate approved a conference

agreement on the budget resolution which includes $309.9 billion for

national defense.

FY2000 supplemental appropriations: By early March, the

Administration had requested $5.3 billion of FY2000 supplemental

appropriations, including $2.3 billion for the Department of Defense,

of which $2.0 billion was for peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and

$98 million for support of counter-drug activities in Colombia. On

March 9, the House Appropriations Committee marked up a bill,

H.R. 3908, that provided $9.1 billion in supplemental appropriations,

including $5.0 billion for DOD. The additional money for DOD

included $1.6 billion for petroleum price increases and $854 million

for increased defense health program costs. On March 29, the full

House approved an amendment to the bill that provided an additional

$4 billion for defense programs, all of which was made available

through September 30, 2001. The Senate, however, declined to

consider the bill and decided to fold supplemental appropriations for

FY2000 into regular FY2001 appropriations bills. Under the

conference agreement on the FY2001 budget resolution, the extra $4

billion that the House provided for defense could be incorporated

into the regular FY2001 defense appropriations bills. On June 29,

the House, and on June 30, the Senate, approved a conference

agreement on the FY2001 military construction appropriations bills,

H.R. 4425, which includes supplemental appropriations for military

operations in Kosovo and elsewhere and for counterdrug assistance

to Colombia, and the President signed the measure into law (P.L.

106-246) on July 13. For a table showing congressional action on

DOD programs in the supplemental, see Table A8 in the Appendix.

For a full discussion of the supplemental, see CRS Report RL30457,

Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia, Kosovo,

Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and Other

Initiatives, by (name redacted) et al.

House version of the defense authorization bill: On May 10, the

House Armed Services Committee marked up and ordered to be

reported its version of the annual defense authorization bill, H.R.

4205. The bill was considered on the floor on May 17 and 18, and

the House approved the measure on May 18. House and Senate

conferees announced an agreement on the measure on October 6,

and the House approved the conference report by a vote of 382-31

on October 11, and the Senate approved it on October 12 by a vote

of 90-3. The President signed the bill into law on October 30 (P.L.

106-398).

Senate version of the defense authorization bill: On May 10, the

Senate Armed Services Committee marked up and ordered to be

reported its version of the FY2001 defense authorization bill, S.

2549. Floor action began on June 6, and the Senate approved the

measure on July 13.

CRS-4

House version of the defense appropriations bill: On May 11, the

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version

of the FY2001 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4576), and on May

25, the full Appropriations Committee completed its markup

(H.Rept. 106-644). The House approved the measure on June 7. A

conference agreement on the bill was filed on July 17 (H.Rept. 106754), the House approved the agreement on July 19, the Senate

approved it on July 27, and the President signed the bill into law on

August 9 (P.L. 106-259).

Senate version of the defense appropriations bill: The Senate

Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2001

Defense appropriations bill, S. 2593 on May 18. The Senate began

to consider the bill on the floor on June 8 when it took up the House

version, H.R. 4576 and substituted the text of S. 2593. The Senate

approved the measure on June 13.

Military construction appropriations: On May 9, the House and

Senate Appropriations Committees marked up different versions of

the military construction appropriations bill – S. 2521 in the Senate

and H.R. 4425 in the House. The House passed the bill on May 16,

and the Senate on May 18. The House agreed to a conference report

on the bill on June 29, and the Senate on June 30. The President

signed the bill into law (P.L. 106-246) on July 13. For a full

discussion, see CRS Report RL30510, Appropriations for FY2001:

Military Construction, by Mary Tyszkiewicz.

Table 1. Status of FY2001 Defense Appropriations

Subcommittee

Markup

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate Conference

Passage Report

Senate

5/11/00 5/17/00

5/25/00

5/18/00

6/7/00

6/13/00

H.Rept.

S.Rept.

(376-58)

(95-3)

106-644

106-298

7/17/00

H.Rept.

106-754

Conference Report

Approval

Public

Law

House

Senate

7/19/00

(367-58)

8/9/00

7/27/00

(P.L 106(91-9)

259)

Overview of the Administration Request

Overall Funding

The Administration requested a total of $305.4 billion in new budget authority

for the national defense budget function in FY2001. There are several ways to put

the overall request into context – one is to compare the request to the amount

Congress provided for defense in FY2000; a second is to calculate the inflationadjusted growth or decline in projected spending from year to year; and a third is to

compare the amount the Administration requested for FY2001 with the amount it

planned a year earlier to request for FY2001.

CRS-5

Compared to FY2000 appropriations for defense: In 1999,

Congress appropriated a total of $289.7 billion for national defense

in FY2000. The total includes amounts provided in the regular

appropriations bills (both as regular appropriations and as emergency

appropriations) and $3.8 billion FY2000 funds for a pay raise in the

FY1999 Kosovo supplemental appropriations measure (P.L. 10631), offset by an across-the-board reduction of 0.38% imposed by

the FY2000 consolidated appropriations bill (P.L. 106-113).

Compared to the FY2000 enacted level, the Administration request

represented an increase of $15.7 billion for the national defense

budget function, and of $14.8 billion for the Department of Defense.

The rate of real growth or decline: As Table 2 shows, the

Administration plan represented real growth of about 1.3% above

inflation compared to the Administration’s estimate of the FY2000

defense funding level (which included, among other things, a $2.3

billion supplemental appropriations request.) The Administration

projected that defense spending would decline modestly, adjusted for

inflation, in FY2002 and would then be essentially level, again

adjusted for inflation, through FY2005. Longer term White House

projections, not shown here, assume that national defense budget

authority will remain flat, adjusted for inflation, through FY2009.

Although this represents an end to the decline in defense spending

that had been underway since the mid-1980s, many argue that the

defense budget should increase, at least at a modest pace, over the

next few years in order to maintain readiness and permit an increase

in weapons modernization (see below for a further discussion).

Indeed, Secretary Cohen and other senior officials have agreed that

weapons procurement budgets, in particular, should turn up

substantially in the future. Long-term Administration defense plans,

however, still assumed that budgets would be flat for the foreseeable

future.

Compared to the previous year’s Administration plan for

FY2001: In February 1999, when it presented its FY2000 budget

request to Congress, the Administration projected FY2001 funding

of $300.5 billion for the national defense budget function and of

$286.4 billion for the Department of Defense. The February 2000

FY2001 request was $4.9 billion higher for the national defense

budget function and $4.7 billion higher for DOD. The funding

increases included $2.2 billion to cover increased costs of military

contingency operations (mainly peacekeeping in Kosovo) and $1.4

billion to cover increased fuel costs. In the past, the Defense

Department has often had to absorb such increased costs within its

planned budget, and the decision to add money to cover such

expenses represents a significant change in policy.1

It is also worth noting that the FY2001 DOD budget has more purchasing power than was

(continued...)

CRS-6

Table 2. National Defense Budget Function and Department of Defense

Budget, Administration Projections, FY1998-2005

(current and constant FY2001 dollars in billions)

Fiscal Year:

Actual Actual

Est.

1998 1999 2000*

National Defense Budget Function

Budget Authority

Current year dollars

271.3

Constant FY2001 dollars

290.8

Real growth/decline

-1.7%

Outlays

Current year dollars

268.4

Constant FY2001 dollars

286.9

Real growth/decline

-2.7%

Department of Defense Budget

Budget Authority

Current year dollars

258.5

Constant FY2001 dollars

277.2

Real growth/decline

-1.8%

Outlays

Current year dollars

256.1

Constant FY2001 dollars

273.8

Real growth/decline

-2.8%

292.1

307.0

+5.6%

Proj.

2001

Proj.

2002

Proj.

2003

293.3 305.4

301.6 305.4

-1.8% +1.3%

309.2

302.7

-0.9%

315.6 323.4 331.7

302.3 302.4 302.8

-0.1% +0.0% +0.1%

274.9 290.6

288.7 298.8

+0.6% +3.5%

278.4

292.6

+5.5%

Proj.

2005

291.2 298.4 307.4 316.5 330.7

291.2 292.2 295.0 296.6 302.7

-2.6% +0.4% +0.9% +0.5% +2.0%

279.9 291.1

287.9 291.1

-1.6% +1.1%

261.4 277.5

274.5 285.3

+0.3% +3.9%

Proj.

2004

294.8

288.6

-0.9%

300.9 308.3 316.4

288.2 288.3 288.9

-0.1% +0.0% +0.2%

277.5 284.3 293.0 301.9 315.8

277.5 278.4 281.2 282.8 289.0

-2.7% +0.3% +1.0% +0.6% +2.2%

Sources: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States

Government, Fiscal Year 2001 , Feb. 2000; CRS calculations based on deflators from Department of

Defense Comptroller.

*Note: The FY2000 level represents an Administration estimate that assumes congressional enactment

of proposed supplemental appropriations of $2.3 billion.

Key Aspects of the Administration Request

With some notable exceptions, the FY2001 defense request, and the FY20012005 long-term plan, reflected the continuation of DOD priorities that had been in

place for several years. Significant aspects of the Administration request, including

changes from earlier plans, include:

(...continued)

planned last year for two other reasons. First, except for fuel, inflation has been lower than

was expected last year, and DOD has, in effect, been allowed to keep the money saved and

apply it to additional purchases. Second, last year it was assumed that the FY2001 defense

budget would have to absorb $3.1 billion of “advance appropriations” for military

construction projects that were actually part of the FY2000 budget request. Congress rejected

the use of advance appropriations, however, and fully funded FY2000 military construction

projects in the FY2000 budget. So the extra $3.1 billion is available for other purposes, since

the FY2001 budget was not reduced to reflect the additional FY2000 funds.

CRS-7

Army National Guard and Reserve force levels: Secretary of

Defense Cohen decided not to complete reductions in Army National

Guard and Reserve troop levels that were planned following the

1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR called for a

reduction of 45,000 Army Guard and Reserve positions, of which

20,000 were implemented by the end of 1999. As a result, a decision

on the remaining 25,000 positions will be deferred pending the

outcome of the next QDR, to be carried out in 2001. Secretary

Cohen explained that Army Guard and Reserve forces have taken on

much greater responsibility for peacekeeping and other missions

recently.

Army “transformation:” The Army has undertaken a major effort

to develop and field a more flexible and more easily deployed

“medium weight” force structure. This entails, (1) as an interim step,

buying an existing medium-weight armored vehicle to equip

redesigned brigades; (2) accelerating several other weapons

programs, such as the Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank missile, the High

Mobility Artillery Rocket System, the Tactical Unmanned Aerial

Vehicle, and a number of command, control, and communications

programs; and (3) accelerating development of the Future Combat

Vehicle (FCV). It also entails reducing other programs to offset at

least part of the increased costs. Major program reductions, which

were a matter of congressional scrutiny, included slowing and

redesigning the Crusader artillery program, and eliminating, among

other things, the Grizzly engineer vehicle and the Wolverine Heavy

Assault Bridge.

Submarines and other ship-building programs: DOD also made

some adjustments in Navy shipbuilding programs – though they were

not as extensive as some Members of Congress had expected in the

autumn of 1999. Following a Joint Chiefs of Staff review of attack

submarine (SSN) force levels, DOD agreed to maintain 55 SSNs in

the force, rather than shrink to 50, as had been planned. The new

FY2001-2005 shipbuilding plan included a reserve of $1.1 billion for

either refueling overhauls of existing SSNs or to convert Trident

missile submarines into attack submarines carrying large numbers of

cruise missiles. Regarding surface combatant ships, the Navy

extended development of the new DD-21 destroyer by one year,

through FY2005, and it stretched out procurement of remaining,

current-generation, DDG-51 destroyers until then. In a program of

continuing interest to Congress, DOD requested no money for LHD

amphibious ship procurement, even though Congress provided partial

funding of $356 million for one ship, the LHD-8, in the FY2000

budget.

Aircraft programs: DOD made no major changes in fighter aircraft

programs, but changes in cargo aircraft procurement were

significant. DOD requested 12 C-17 aircraft, rather than 15, as had

been planned. Officials expected that the decline in U.S. purchases

CRS-8

could be made up by British procurement. DOD also requested

funds for 4 C-130 aircraft in order, officials said, to avoid

temporarily shutting down the production line, which would cost an

estimated $600 million to restart. Some have argued that this

vindicates Congress’s decision to add funds for C-130s in recent

years. The Navy also restructured its trainer aircraft programs.

Missile defense: In its revised long-term budget plan, the Defense

Department increased projected funding for National Missile Defense

by $2.3 billion over the FY2001-2005 period, to a total of $10.4

billion, saying this will fully support the option of deploying an initial

system in Alaska beginning in 2005. DOD also made some changes

in theater missile defense (TMD) programs, the most significant

being a cut of $859 million, over five years, in the Air Force Airborne

Laser (ABL) program. As Congress directed in the FY2000 defense

bills, DOD included separate funding lines for the Theater HighAltitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and for the Navy Theater

Wide (NTW) program – both are high altitude, long-range TMD

programs for defense against short- to intermediate-range missiles.

The $60 Billion Procurement Target and

the Defense “Train Wreck” Debate

In presenting the FY2001 defense plan to Congress, Secretary Cohen and other

senior officials emphasized one key aspect of the request – the request includes $60.3

billion for weapons procurement. The $60 billion weapons budget is particularly

important because it has become a litmus test of support for a strong defense. In

1995, the Joint Chiefs of Staff urged an increase in procurement funding – then at

about $45 billion – to $60 billion a year beginning in FY1998. This was, they argued,

the minimum level necessary over time to “recapitalize” an inventory of weapons that

would otherwise begin to age very rapidly. The Administration originally committed

to reach that level by FY2000, but fell short as money was reallocated to maintain

short-term readiness. Achieving the $60 billion target in FY2001, therefore, became

a matter of some political significance.

As it has turned out, the $60 billion procurement level is now seen by many

defense proponents in Congress as wholly inadequate. In the congressional defense

committees the issue has been how far short of necessary levels the budget remains,

with answers ranging from $20 or $30 billion a year at the low end to $100 billion

short of what is needed at the high end. Early in the year, much of the discussion was

shaped by a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),

entitled Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the Next Millennium,2 which calculated

that procurement budgets would have to average $164 billion per year (in FY2000

Daniel Goure and Jeffrey M. Ranney, Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New

Millennium (Washington: CSIS, 1999). The CSIS study was the subject of a hearing before

the House Armed Services Committee on February 8, and prepared remarks are available at

the Committee website: [http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/2000.html].

CRS-9

prices) over the next decade to replace the weapons in the current inventory with

more advanced versions as systems reach the ends of their planned service lives.

The CSIS study made a number of assumptions that have been questioned. Not

all parts of the weapons stock will be replaced any time soon (strategic nuclear

missiles and bombers, for example, are not projected to be upgraded in the foreseeable

future, and some will be retired if there is a START III agreement); Army tanks may

be replaced some time after 2010, but possibly not with similar types of weapons;

costs of tactical aircraft and of Navy ships may be unlikely to grow as fast in the

future as CSIS assumes, since the services will be required to reduce weapons

performance if necessary to stay within budget constraints; modern precision

munitions ought to be able to replace older ones on much less than a one-for-one

basis, and many of the newer munitions are much cheaper than older ones; and many

weapons may simply be kept in the inventory much longer than nominal service life

estimates call for, perhaps with upgrades that are less costly than buying new systems.

Several less extreme estimates of required procurement levels, however, still

show a shortfall of some magnitude. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary

Assessments calculated that the Administration’s procurement program would cost

about $80 billion a year (in FY1999 prices) by the later part of the decade.3 The

Congressional Budget Office testified in 1999 that it would cost about $90 billion a

year (also in FY1999 prices) to sustain a “steady state” procurement rate – i.e., a rate

at which enough major weapons would be bought every year to maintain roughly the

current number of weapons in the stock, on the assumption that parts of the force will

be allowed to grow older than has historically been the goal.4 Most recently, CBO

completed a broader study of what it called a “steady state” budget – i.e., the amount

needed over the long term to maintain a force of the current size and composition.5

CBO estimates that a “steady state” budget over the next 15 years would have to

average about $340 billion a year, in FY2000 prices, of which, as CBO calculated a

year earlier, about $90 billion a year would be for procurement.

For its part, the Defense Department has acknowledged that procurement

budgets may have to grow further in the future, but senior civilian officials have

disputed the various projections by outside analysts. In congressional testimony in

February 2000, Secretary of Defense Cohen stipulated that procurement budgets will

have to grow substantially beyond $70 billion a year in the period after FY2008, when

several planned weapons programs are scheduled to begin full scale production. But

See Steven Kosiak and Elizabeth Heeter, “Cost of Defense Plan Could Exceed Available

Funding by $26 Billion a Year Over Long Run,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary

Assessments, April 2, 1998. Available electronically at [http://www.csbaonline.org].

Lane Pierrot, Senior Analyst, National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office,

Statement on Aging Military Equipment before the Subcommittee on Military Procurement

Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1999. Available

electronically at

[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1096&from=3&sequence=0].

Congressional Budget Office, Budgeting for Defense: Maintaining Today’s Forces,

September 2000. Available electronically at

[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2398&sequence=0&from=7].

CRS-10

in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 21, DOD

Comptroller William Lynn insisted that the CBO overstates requirements because it

assumes a one-for-one replacement of current generation weapons with like systems

in the future, which is not likely given efforts to transform the force.6

A corollary issue concerns whether it will be possible to increase funding for

weapons procurement over the next several years without a substantial increase in

overall defense spending. The Clinton Administration assumes that spending on

operation and maintenance (O&M) will level off over the next several years and that

savings from improved efficiency will be allocated to weapons procurement.

Historically, however, projected O&M savings have seldom materialized, and O&M

costs have continued to grow from year to year. It remains possible that increased

procurement spending could be financed by reducing the size of the force. For the

present, however, each of the military services has complained that it is being

overstretched by the demands of the post-Cold War international environment –

debate has focused on whether and how much to increase selected elements of the

force, rather than on where to make cuts.

Military Service “Unfunded Priorities Lists”

For the past several years, the military services have submitted to the

congressional defense committees lists of programs that would be candidates for any

additional funds made available. These lists have substantially guided congressional

additions to the defense budget. In 2000, the services submitted “unfunded priorities

lists” amounting to more than $16 billion in FY2001 and well over $80 billion in the

FY2001-2005 period – the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization submitted its own

list. As in the past, priorities were about evenly divided between readiness-related

accounts and weapons programs.

The FY2001 congressional budget resolution approved by the House on March

23, 2000, provided only $1 billion more for national defense than the Administration

requested, which would not leave much room for additions to service budgets later

in the process. The House approved $4 billion more for defense as part of the

FY2000 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 3908, however. All of the extra $4

billion was made available through September 30, 2001, so it would represent, in

effect, an addition to the FY2001 defense budget. Later, the Senate added $4 billion

to its version of the FY2001 budget resolution. These amounts, together with other

measures appropriators took subsequently, provided more room for Congress to add

funds for major weapons programs.

Some of the items on service unfunded priorities lists have been particular

matters of discussion in Congress. The Army, for example, included proposals to

restore funds for programs that were trimmed in order to provide money for the

medium-weight force, including Wolverine and Grizzly. The Air Force included a

proposal to restore funds for the Airborne Laser, a program that has historically been

a matter of congressional interest.

Statement of William J. Lynn before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee

on Military Procurement, September 21, 2000.

CRS-11

Key Issues in Congress

Several key issues emerged in Congress over the course of the FY2001 defense

debate, including several matters that carried over from debates in recent years.

The Level of Defense Spending

The Administration requested $305.4 billion in new budget authority for national

defense programs – an amount reestimated by CBO to total $305.3 billion. Of this

total, $284.5 billion was requested in the defense appropriations bill. In initial

committee action on the congressional budget resolution, neither the House nor the

Senate appeared inclined to add much to the Administration request – instead, the

priority in both chambers was to limit total discretionary spending to something less

that a freeze with growth for inflation. The original House-passed budget resolution

provided $306.3 billion in budget authority for national defense, just $1 billion more

than the request. The Senate Budget Committee recommended a level of $305.8

billion, $500 million above the request.

Pressure from defense advocates to provide more for defense was growing in

both chambers, however. The House responded by adding $4 billion for defense to

the pending supplemental appropriations bill – in effect an addition to the FY2001

funding level. Subsequently, the Senate agreed to an amendment to the budget

resolution to increase the FY2001 level by $4 billion, to $309.8 billion. The

conference agreement provides $309.9 billion, $4.6 billion above the Administration

request. See Table A6 in the Appendix for detailed figures through FY2005.

The $4.6 billion added to the Administration request allowed Congress some

room, at least, to provide funds for selected programs of special interest. The

conference agreement also included a provision that establishes a point of order in the

Senate against measures that would exceed specified levels of funding for defense and

for non-defense discretionary spending – in effect reestablishing so-called “fire-walls”

between defense and non-defense appropriations. In the end, this provision was, in

effect, moot, because Congress later lifted caps on discretionary spending to

accommodate both defense and non-defense increases.

Congressional Action: In the past two years, the appropriations committees used

a number of devices to increase defense spending substantially while formally

adhering to caps on total discretionary spending. In final action on FY1999

appropriations bills, for example, appropriators included in the FY1999 Omnibus

Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 105-277, about $21 billion in emergency

supplemental appropriations, of which $8.3 billion was for the Department of

Defense. Last year, in action on FY2000 bills, appropriators took several steps

to provide additional funds for defense and non-defense programs, including (1)

providing $1.8 billion in funding for FY2000 pay raises as emergency

appropriations in an FY1999 supplemental appropriations bill; (2) moving the

last pay day of the fiscal year for military personnel into FY2001; and (3)

designating $7.2 billion in the FY2000 defense appropriations bill as emergency

funding.

CRS-12

This year, appropriators have taken some similar steps. As noted above, the

House added $4 billion in emergency defense funds to the FY2000 supplemental

appropriations bill, H.R. 3908, all of which was made available through

FY2001 – in effect, an addition to the FY2001 defense budget. The conference

agreement on the supplemental (which is included in H.R. 4425, the FY2001

military construction appropriations bill), includes $1.8 billion of that amount

along with some additional funds – see Table A8 in the Appendix for a detailed

account of all DOD funds in the supplemental. The conference agreement on the

supplemental also moves the pay date for military personnel back into FY2000,

thus freeing up additional outlays within the FY2001 discretionary spending

caps. Senator Gramm objected to this step and some other related provisions

in the supplemental and insisted that they be reversed. This held up final Senate

action on the FY2001 defense appropriations bill.

The conference agreement on the FY2001 defense appropriations bill also

includes additional measures to squeeze extra money into the budget without

formally violating spending caps. In particular, the bill provides $1,779 million

in emergency FY2000 appropriations. Of this amount, $1.1 billion is for the

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund that provides money for

operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Southwest Asia and elsewhere, and the remaining

$679 million is mainly for programs that were in the House-passed version of the

FY2000 supplemental but that were removed in conference. The bill also

includes a general provision that eliminates $1.1 billion in FY2001 funds for the

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. So, in effect, the bill provides

FY2001 money for contingency operations as in the form of FY2000 emergency

appropriations. If the FY2000 emergency funding is not counted as part of the

FY2001 appropriations bill, the conference agreement provides $3.3 billion more

for DOD than the Administration requested. If supplemental funding is counted,

the bill provides an increase of $5.1 billion. Table 3 provides an overview of the

bill by title.

Later, however, Congress made an across-the-board cut of 0.22% in all FY2001

discretionary appropriations, including defense, in H.R. 4577, the Labor-HHSEducation appropriations bill that became a vehicle for several other

appropriations measures at the end of the session. The across-the-board cut

exempted funding for military personnel. In all, the defense reduction amounts

to $521 million according to CBO estimates. H.R. 4577 also provided some

additional FY2001 funds for defense programs. The major defense additions

are $150 million to repair bomb damage to the USS Cole, $100 million for

classified programs in funded through the Overseas Contingency Operations

Transfer Fund, and $43.5 million for military construction programs. The bill

also includes a measure to facilitate planning for expansion of the Army’s

National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. Table 4 provides an estimate

of total FY2001 funding for the National Defense Budget Function, including

amounts provided in H.R. 4577.

CRS-13

Table 3: FY2001 Defense Appropriations, Congressional Action by Title

(thousands of dollars)

Request

House

Approp.

Senate

Approp.

Conference

Approp.

Change to

Request

Title I - Military Personnel

75,801,666

75,904,216

75,817,487

75,847,740

+46,074

Title II - Operation and Maintenance

96,280,113

97,507,228

96,720,882

96,889,774

+609,661

150,000

Title III - Procurement /a/

(By transfer)

59,236,234

61,558,679

57,896,122

59,232,846

-3,388

Title IV - RDT&E

37,873,184

40,170,230

39,597,489

41,359,605

+3,486,421

Title V - Revolving & Management Funds

1,304,434

1,316,934

4,195,357

4,157,857

+2,853,423

Title VI - Other Programs /b/

13,587,774

14,029,874

14,190,824

14,114,424

+526,650

Title VII - Related agencies

385,581

472,131

460,281

431,581

+46,000

Title VIII - General provisions

32,000

(2,446,492)

(1,247,942)

(4,227,773)

-4,259,773

Total, Department of Defense

284,500,986

288,512,800

287,630,500

287,806,054

+3,305,068

FY2000 Supplemental Funds

1,779,000

+1,779,000

284,500,986

288,512,800

287,630,500

289,585,054

+5,084,068

Total Funding Provided

Sources: H.Rept. 106-754, House Appropriations Committee.

a. Senate and Conference levels for procurement do not include C-17 procurement, which was provided instead in Title V,

Revolving & Management Funds – the Senate provided $2,478,723,000 and the Conference agreement provides $2,428,723.

When C-17 funding is included, the appropriations conference agreement provides about $2.5 billion more than requested

for weapons procurement.

b. Includes Defense Health Program, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, Drug Interdiction, and Office of the Inspector General.

Table 4: FY2001 National Defense Funding by Appropriations Bill

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

DOD Appropriations

Military Construction Appropriations

Energy& Water Appropriations

Other Appropriations

Offsetting Receipts

Omnibus Appropriations Supplementals

Omnibus Appropriations 0.22% Cut

Total, Regular Appropriations

Enacted

Request Appropriations

284,501

287,806

8,034

8,834

13,084

13,657

896

1,132

-1,202

-1,230

296

-521

305,313

309,974

Change

to Request

+3,305

+800

+573

+236

-28

+296

-521

+4,661

Sources: CRS based on appropriations tables from House Appropriations Committee in the Congressional

Record and Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Defense Health Care

Last year, the Administration requested an extensive set of improvements in

military pay and benefits, and Congress responded by approving a somewhat more

generous package. This year, Administration officials focused on fixing perceived

shortcomings in defense health care, and Congress again considered some more

expansive alternatives. Two inter-related sets of issues have been particular matters

CRS-14

of attention: (1) adjustments in the “TRICARE” program of health benefits for

military dependents and (2) military retiree health care.

The Administration supported two TRICARE reform measures, one to eliminate

co-payments for families enrolled in the TRICARE HMO program, called TRICARE

Prime, and another to extend a managed care option, called TRICARE Prime Remote,

to family members of military personnel serving more than 50 miles from a military

base. The Administration did not formally propose any changes in medical programs

for military retirees, though the Joint Chiefs and other senior Defense Department

officials informally supported at least two measures. One is to extend nationally a test

program, called TRICARE Senior Prime, which provides HMO-type coverage to

retirees with Medicare paying part of the cost for those eligible. A second is to

provide mail-order pharmacy benefits and Medigap coverage to retirees over age 64

where TRICARE Senior Prime is not available. A number of demonstration projects

to test alternative ways of providing retiree health care are ongoing.7

In Congress, several measures to reform defense health care programs were

proposed.8 The Senate-passed version of the annual defense authorization bill

included a guarantee that the Defense Department will provide health care for life to

military retirees. (For a discussion of current military medical programs and of some

alternatives see CRS Issue Brief IB93103, Military Medical Care Services: Questions

and Answers, by Richard A. Best; CRS Report 98-1006, Military Health Care: The

Issue of “Promised” Benefits, by David Burrelli; and U.S. General Accounting

Office, Statement of Stephen P. Backhus on “Defense Health Care: Observations on

Proposed Benefit Expansion and Overcoming TRICARE Obstacles” before the House

Armed Services Committee Military Personnel Subcommittee, GAO Report THEHS/NSIAD-00-129, March 15, 2000.)

Congressional Action: The conference agreement on the congressional budget

resolution included a section that reserved funds for a possible increase in

military retiree health benefits. The amount available, however, was limited to

$50 million in FY2001 and $400 million over the FY2001-2005 period. This

amount was not enough to cover a substantial expansion of retiree health care

benefits. In its version of the defense authorization bill, however, the Senate

approved a guarantee that DOD would provide care benefits to all retirees. This

was a key issue in the authorization conference.

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) version of the defense

authorization approved expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote, made some

administrative changes in TRICARE, and added some other benefits for

TRICARE participants, including a lower limit on catastrophic costs and

payment of some travel expenses. On retiree health care, the HASC bill

extended current demonstration programs, established a TRICARE Senior

For an excellent overview by DOD officials, see Hon. Rudy DeLeon, et al., “The Military

Health System: A Joint Overview Statement,” testimony before the House Armed Services

Committee, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, March 15, 2000.

The Congressional Budget Office has recently prepared cost estimates of $8-10 billion per

year by FY2005 for three similar bills – H.R. 2966, H.R. 3573, and S. 2003.

CRS-15

pharmacy program, and recommended an independent panel to propose a

“roadmap” for retiree health care that would establish a permanent benefit by

FY2004. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of the

authorization also extended TRICARE Remote, and it established an extensive

pharmacy benefit for all retirees, including those eligible for Medicare, with no

enrollment fee or deductible.

In floor action on June 7, the Senate approved an amendment to the

authorization bill by Senator Warner that would eliminate a provision in current

law that makes military retirees eligible for Medicare – i.e., all those over age 64

– ineligible for military medical care. The provision would take effect on

October 1, 2001. In effect, this is a guarantee that the Defense Department will

provide full health coverage for life to retirees. Because this measure would

exceed limits on mandatory spending if extended beyond the end of FY2004,

Senator Warner added a provision that would terminate the program after then –

but his intention clearly was that the program, if finally approved by Congress,

would continue, with an adjustment in caps on mandatory spending being made

to extend it permanently. The Warner amendment also extended the TRICARE

Senior Prime demonstration program.

The authorization conference agreement makes permanent the guarantees

provided by the Warner amendment in the Senate bill, and it establishes a

separate trust fund from which costs of the program will be paid. Once the fund

is established, the Defense Department will be required to pay into the fund the

actuarily determined cost of future benefits for current personnel. The

conference agreement also provides a nation-wide pharmacy benefit for all

beneficiaries, extends TRICARE remote, eliminates co-payments for TRICARE

Prime for active duty family members, and extends the TRICARE Senior Prime

demonstration program.

The budget effects of increased health care benefits are complex and have been

a matter of some confusion, in part because some costs for military retiree health

care benefits that the Defense Department now pays out of annual appropriations

will be shifted to a new, “mandatory” account. Table 5 provides the most

recent, though still preliminary, Congressional Budget Office estimate of the

budgetary impact of the retiree health care provisions in the conference

agreement. To summarize:

(1) Under current law, the Defense Department is projected to provide $24.8

billion in benefits to military retirees over the ten years from FY2001 through

FY2010, all of which would have to be absorbed within total discretionary

appropriations for DOD.

(2) The authorization conference agreement provides an additional $40.4 billion

of benefits for retirees, of which $200 million in FY2001 and $1.7 billion in

FY2002 will be paid for through regular, “discretionary” DOD appropriations.

(3) The remaining $38.5 billion in additional benefits, plus $21.4 billion of the

amount that DOD is already providing to retirees (i.e., a total of $59.9 billion),

will be provided for retiree benefits as “mandatory” spending, in small part

CRS-16

through Medicare, but mainly, beginning in FY2003, through a new

“Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund.”

(4) Also beginning in FY2003, the Defense Department will make payments to

the new fund to reflect the cost of future benefits for current uniformed

personnel. Through FY2010, these payments will total $29.0 billion. This

funding mechanism is known as “accrual accounting,” and it has been used since

FY1985 to finance military retirement costs and has long been used to finance

federal civilian retirement.

(5) In all, “discretionary” DOD appropriations will pay $1.9 billion more than

under current law in FY2001-2002 for increased retirement benefits, $29.0

billion more for health care retirement benefits accrual from FY2003-2010, but

$21.4 billion less from FY2003-2010 to reflect the shift of spending on health

care for retirees beginning in FY2003 to mandatory accounts, for a net increase

of $9.5 billion in discretionary funding over FY2001-2010.

(6) Total mandatory spending in the federal budget will increase by $59.9 billion

from FY2001 through FY2010 – an amount that has not been offset and that

therefore triggered a point of order against the measure in the Senate under

current “pay-as-you-go” budget rules – the Senate waived the point of order by

a vote of 84-9.

For its part, the appropriations conference agreement provides $963 million

above the request for the Defense Health Program – enough, appropriators

explained, to implement expanded pharmacy access for retirees as approved in

the House-passed version of the defense authorization bill. The $200 million

cost in FY2001 of the health care provisions in the authorization conference

agreement was not provided in the appropriations bill, but it may be financed in

a number of ways – it could simply be absorbed within the Defense Health Care

program, financed through reprogramming of other DOD funds, or paid for by

later supplemental appropriations by Congress.

CRS-17

Table 5: Estimated Costs of Military Retiree Health Care Provisions

(current year dollars in millions)

Total

FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2001-05 FY2001-10

Direct/"Mandatory" Spending

Retiree Health Care Trust Fund

Warner Plan Plus RX

Current Discretionary Costs Made Mandatory

Additional Accrual Costs

Non-DOD Uniformed Personnel*

Sub-Total Trust Fund

Medicare

Medicare Increase Under Warner Plan

Medicare Subvention

Sub-Total Medicare

Total Direct/"Mandatory" Spending

3,160

2,039

204

5,451

3,428

2,209

221

5,910

3,700

2,386

239

6,381

3,971

2,561

256

6,848

4,248

2,744

274

7,330

4,535

2,932

293

7,828

4,848

3,142

314

8,376

5,194

3,373

337

8,981

10,288

6,634

664

185

17,771

33,084

21,386

2,138

526

57,134

116

124

150

252

5,703

273

6,183

298

6,679

311

7,159

332

7,662

354

8,182

377

8,753

402

9,383

939

967

18,738

2,715

2,743

59,877

1,709

1,664

2,039

2,209

2,386

2,561

2,744

2,932

3,142

3,373

10,007

24,759

200

+200

1,909

1,688

+1,688

3,352

-2,039

3,184

+1,145

3,184

-2,209

3,414

+1,205

3,414

-2,386

3,519

+1,133

3,519

-2,561

3,612

+1,051

3,612

-2,744

3,698

+954

3,698

-2,932

3,777

+845

3,777

-3,142

3,867

+725

3,867

-3,373

3,966

+593

3,966

-6,634

10,117

1,888

+5,371

15,378

-21,386

29,037

1,888

+9,539

34,298

Note: Net Additional Cost of Military Retiree Health Care Provisions, Discretionary and Mandatory

Total Retiree Health Benefits

1,932

3,502

5,703

6,183

6,679

7,159

Less: Amount DOD is Now Paying

1,709

1,664

2,039

2,209

2,386

2,561

Net Increased Cost

223

1,838

3,664

3,974

4,293

4,598

7,662

2,744

4,918

8,182

2,932

5,250

8,753

3,142

5,611

9,383

3,373

6,010

23,999

10,007

13,992

65,138

24,759

40,379

Appropriations/"Discretionary" Spending

Discretionary Spending Under Current Law

Changes:

Shift Discretionary to Mandatory

Annual DOD Payment to Trust Fund*

Warner Plan Added Discretionary Cost

Sub-Total Discretionary Changes

Total Subject to Annual Appropriations

Source: Congressional Budget Office Draft Estimates.

*Notes: Non-DOD uniformed personnel include Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. DOD will

make payments to the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to reflect the cost of future benefits for current uniformed personnel.

CRS-18

National Missile Defense (NMD)

In 1996, the Clinton Administration announced a revised NMD development

program, know as the “three-plus-three” plan. Under the plan, development and

testing of a missile defense system would proceed for three years, after which a

decision would be made on whether to deploy a system. Then, if a decision was made

to go ahead, the system could begin operation another three years later. As the plan

evolved, the so-called “Deployment Readiness Review” (DRR) was scheduled for

June 2000, and the potential date for an initial deployment was pushed back to

calendar year 2005. This year’s debate over national missile defense focused mainly

on whether the President should go ahead with the formal DRR as scheduled or

whether, in view of a series of test failures, the President should leave a decision to

his successor. After a test failure in January and some delays in other parts of the

program, the DRR was pushed back to late in the summer. Another test failure on

July 7 further intensified the debate. Finally, on September 1, 2000, President Clinton

announced that he would leave a decision on the program to his successor.

Early in the year, much of the discussion in Congress was shaped by two official

reports that raised serious questions about the pace of the NMD development

program. The “National Missile Defense Review,” a panel study headed by former

Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welch, warned last November that the NMD

program continues to be a high risk development effort and that additional delays

could further compress the decision-making schedule. The Welch panel did not

recommended deferring the DRR, however. The annual report of the Pentagon’s

Director of operational testing, released in February, was more critical, saying that the

NMD program was being driven by an “artificial decision point.” More recently, a

bitter debate arose about the adequacy of planned tests of the planned NMD system’s

ability to discriminate between warheads and decoys. MIT scientist Ted Postol and

others have argued that the test program has been deliberately “dumbed down” to

avoid challenging tests of discrimination.

The international reaction to the U.S. NMD deployment plan was also a matter

of debate. The Administration has pursued negotiations with Russia on changes in

the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that would be necessary to permit a

deployment without abrogating the agreement. The new Russian leadership has

continued to oppose deployment, however, and some congressional leaders have

promised to resist any measure that would extend the ABM Treaty. The

Administration has also had a hard time persuading key allies of the wisdom of an

NMD deployment. (For an overview of these and other NMD issues, see CRS Issue

Brief IB10034, National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted)

and (name redacted).)

The cost of the system also remains an issue. A recent review by the

Congressional Budget Office projects somewhat higher deployment costs than the

Administration has estimated. CBO estimates that the initial, limited system that the

Administration is planning would cost about $30 billion, in FY2000 prices, to deploy

and operate through FY2015 – a comparable Administration cost estimate, according

to CBO, is about $26 billion. CBO also estimates that the expanded “Capability 2"

and “Capability 3" systems that the Administration is planning would increase total

costs to about $49 billion through FY2015, with an additional $10-11 billion needed

CRS-19

for a space-based infrared sensor system that has other uses as well – there is no

comparable Administration projection.9

Congressional Action: HASC added $85 million for NMD risk reduction

measures, and SASC added $129 million. HASC also included a measure to

transfer management of the Space-Based Infrared System-Low (SBIRS-Low)

from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This reflects

ongoing criticism of Air Force management of the program by some missile

defense advocates. The House Appropriations Committee did not increase

NMD funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee added $129 million for

NMD risk reduction and another $10 million to accelerated radar development.

The conference agreement on the appropriations bill provides $135 million more

for risk reduction. The authorization conference agreement provides $129

million for risk reduction.

This year’s key congressional debate about NMD, however, concerned the

adequacy of the test program rather than money. On July 13, by a 52-48 vote,

the Senate rejected an amendment to the defense authorization bill offered by

Senator Durbin that would have required operationally realistic testing against

countermeasures and an independent assessment of such testing by the Welch

panel.

Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Programs

Last year, Congress rejected an Administration proposal to combine funding for

the land-based Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and the Navy

Theater-Wide (NTW) program, and the status of the two programs was an issue in

Congress again this year. Under the current Administration plan, THAAD will be

pursued first, followed by NTW, unless the THAAD program experiences unexpected

problems. Congress has traditionally supported an acceleration of the NTW program,

however, and some Navy officials claim that the program is ready to proceed more

rapidly than the Administration is planning. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(BMDO) officials have proposed a program to accelerate NTW that would cost an

additional $2.2 billion over the next five years.

Other TMD programs have also been a focus of attention, including the Medium

Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3

(PAC-3) system. MEADS is a cooperative program with allies, and some

congressional committees have been doubtful about the long-term affordability of the

program. Costs of PAC-3 have increased dramatically, and DOD is trying to

restructure the program to reduce the price, a matter of some interest in Congress.

See Table A4, in the appendix, for a complete list of TMD and NMD programs and

requested funding. Funding for the Air Force Airborne Laser (ABL) program was

also be an issue. (For an overview of TMD programs see CRS Issue Brief IB98028,

Theater Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted). For an overview

Congressional Budget Office, “Budgetary and Technical Implications of the

Administration’s Plan for National Missile Defense,” April 2000.

CRS-20

of the ABL program, see CRS Report RL30185, The Airborne Laser Anti-Missile

Program, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).)

Congressional action: HASC, SASC, the House Appropriations Committee

(HAC), and the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) all added money for

the Navy Theater Wide program, though in varying amounts – HASC added $25

million, SASC and SAC $60 million, and HAC $130 million. The appropriations

conference agreement adds $80 million, as does the authorization conference

agreement. HASC, SASC, and SAC also added funds for the Airborne Laser to

restore the program to about the level planned last year, but HAC added no

funds. The appropriations conference agreement adds $85 million, and a general

provision specifically earmarks $233.6 million, the total provided, for the ABL;

the authorization conference also adds $85 million for ABL. HASC also

approved an amendment offered by Representative Curt Weldon to transfer

management of the ABL to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The

appropriations conference agreement provides ABL funding to the Air Force.

On a potentially controversial related program, SASC added $41 million for

Army space control technology development, including the Kinetic Energy AntiSatellite program. HASC, SASC, HAC, and SAC all added money for laser

R&D programs. On MEADS, the appropriations conference agreement follows

the House bill, which cut funding by $10 million – Administration officials

lobbied against the cut, warning that it would disrupt administration of the

program and endanger allied funding.

C-17 and C-130 Cargo Aircraft

The Administration requested funds to procure 12 C-17 cargo aircraft in

FY2001, rather than the 15 that had been planned. The hope was that the gap could

be made up by reaching a purchase or lease agreement with Britain for several

aircraft. Congress has added funds for C-130 aircraft in recent years, but this year the

Administration requested funding for 4 aircraft. (For a discussion of the C-17

program, see CRS Issue Brief IB93041, C-17 Cargo Aircraft Program, by

(name redacted).)

Congressional Action: HASC and HAC added $76 million to procure one

additional KC-130J aircraft for the Marine Corps. SASC and SAC added $165

million for one additional KC-130J and one additional EC-130J for the Air

Force, and the appropriations conference agreement provides the same amounts.

All of the committees approved continued funding for the C-17, though SAC

proposed establishing a “National Defense Airlift Fund” and provided the C-17

funding in that account rather than in the Air Force Aircraft Procurement

account. SAC intends the new airlift fund to operate like the long-established

National Defense Sealift Fund, to which money to procure and operate sealift

ships is appropriated. HAC made some relatively minor adjustments in the

allocation of C-17 funds. The appropriations conference agreement establishes

the National Defense Airlift fund, as SAC recommended, and provides funding

for C-17 procurement and contractor support in that new account.

CRS-21

F-15 and F-16 Aircraft

The Administration did not request funds to purchase additional F-15 and F-16

aircraft. In the past, Congress has added funds for both aircraft to ensure that

production lines continue. Recently, Lockheed has received a large order for F-16s

from the United Arab Emirates, and sales elsewhere are substantial. Foreign F-15

orders have not been so strong, however, and the production line in St. Louis may

shut down without additional purchases. Under similar conditions, Congress added

funds for 5 aircraft last year.

Congressional action: HASC added funds for two F-15s and three F-16s. HAC

added funds for five F-15s. SASC did not provide funds to procure either

aircraft, while SAC added funds for 6 F-16s. All committees added some money

for aircraft modifications and R&D. The appropriations conference report

provides $400 million to procure five F-15s and $122 million to procure four F16s. The authorization conference agreement provides $150 million for two F15s and $52 million for two F-16s.

F/A-18E/F, F-22, and Joint Strike Fighter Programs

The big three theater aircraft modernization programs are the Navy F/A-18E/F,

the Air Force F-22, and the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter. The F-22 was a focus

of extensive debate last year. This year, the Administration has requested funds to

procure 10 aircraft, though the status of the testing program remains a matter of

congressional interest. Now the JSF is becoming a focus of particular attention in

Congress as development proceeds. The General Accounting Office has raised

questions about the development schedule, but program managers insist that the

schedule is appropriate.10 This summer, DOD officials reportedly were considering

whether to split orders for the aircraft between Boeing and Lockheed, no matter

which one wins the design competition currently underway, but finally decided not to

split the program. Senator Feingold has continued to raised questions about the F/A18E/F program. (For an overview of all three programs and references to other CRS

products, see CRS Issue Brief IB92115, Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for

Congress, by (name redacted).)

Congressional action: The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was a focus of

considerable attention in all of the defense committees. The SASC

Subcommittee on Airland Forces initially considered measures that might have

reduced JSF funding if the program continued to experience delays. After

meeting with Secretary Cohen, however, the full committee decided not to

impose any legislative language limiting the program. The committee-approved

bill eliminated $596 million requested for engineering and manufacturing

development (EMD) – the final stage in a weapon’s design – and increased

funding for demonstration and validation – the earlier R&D stage – by $424

million. HASC provided requested funding for EMD, but included language

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Development

Schedule Should Be Changed to Reduce Risks, GAO Report T-NSIAD-00-132, March 16,

2000.

CRS-22

requiring the Secretary of Defense to certify that JSF technology is mature

enough to warrant beginning EMD. HAC reduced EMD funding by $300

million and increased demonstration and validation funding by $150 million.

SAC followed the SASC approach, though it provided slightly less money for

demonstration and validation. The appropriations and authorization conference

agreements provide $203 million for EMD, $393 million below the request, and

$486 million for demonstration and validation, $225 million above the request.

Appropriations conferees explained that this simply reflects an acknowledged

delay of three months in beginning the EMD phase. The authorization

conference approved the same shift of funding from EMD to DEM/VAL. (See

Table 6 for a summary of congressional action on JSF funding). On other

programs, HASC reduced requested F/A-18E/F procurement by three aircraft

(from 42 to 39). All of the committees supported F-22 funding as requested,

and SASC included a provision that would raise the legislatively mandated cost

cap on F-22 R&D by 1%. The appropriations and authorization conferences

agreements provide funds for 42 F-18s, as requested, and match the request for

F-22 procurement and R&D. The authorization conference agreement also raises

the cost cap on F-22 R&D by 1.5%.

Table 6: Congressional Action on FY2001 Joint Strike Fighter Funding

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Request

House

Auth.

Senate

Auth.

Conf.

House

Approp.

Senate

Approp.

Conf.

Navy

63800N Dem/Val*

64800N EMD*

131.566

295.962

131.566

295.962

343.666

0.000

243.050

101.275

206.556

145.962

327.660

0.000

243.050

101.275

Air Force

63800F Dem/Val

64800F EMD

129.538

299.540

144.538

299.540

341.638

0.000

243.050

101.275

204.538

149.540

325.632

0.000

243.050

101.275

Total

Dem/Val

EMD

Total

261.104

595.502

856.606

276.104

595.502

871.606

685.304

0.000

685.304

486.100

202.550

688.650

411.094

295.502

706.596

653.292

0.000

653.292

486.100

202.550

688.650

Notes: Dem/Val refers to "Demonstration and Validation." EMD refers to "Engineering and Manufacturing

Development."

V-22 “Osprey” Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

The status of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, a system being built mainly for the

Marine Corps, has been a matter of some discussion in the wake of a disastrous

accident on April 8 in which 19 Marines were killed. During the Bush Administration,

Congress resisted efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense – against the

wishes of the Marine Corps – to terminate the program. Subsequently, the Clinton

Administration has continued the development program, and Congress has remained

supportive, occasionally adding money to Administration requests.

CRS-23

Congressional action: None of the committees reduced V-22 funding, except

for a minor reduction by SAC. The appropriations conference report makes no

reduction from the request. The authorization conference also approves planned

procurement.

Shipbuilding Programs

A key issue early this year was whether Congress would continue to provide

funds on an “incremental” basis to purchase LHD-8, a large-deck amphibious ship.

Last year, Congress provided $356 million as a down-payment for the $1.8 billion

ship, but the Administration did not request any money in the FY2001 budget, and

also did not include funds in future Navy budget projections. Later in the year, a key

issue became whether to provide requested funds for two LPD-17-class amphibious

ships. Submarine production was also an issue, with a decision pending on whether

to convert 4 Trident missile submarines into cruise missile carriers, and the Navy

beginning to argue that 68 submarines are needed to fulfil current requirements. (For

a general discussion of attack submarine issues, see CRS Report RL30045, Navy

Attack Submarine Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald

O’Rourke.) The Navy has also begun to argue more and more explicitly for an

increase in the overall size of the force beyond the planned 300 ships, and there

continues to be some sentiment on the congressional defense committees to the effect

that planned shipbuilding rates are too low. (For a discussion of shipbuilding issues,

see CRS Report RS20535, Navy Ship Procurement Rate and the Planned Size of the

Navy: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.)

Congressional action: SASC and SAC added $460 million in incremental

funding for LHD-8. SAC also eliminated $1.5 billion buy two LPD-17-class

amphibious ships, complaining that the design is not stable and that costs are

climbing. Instead, SAC provided $179 million in advance procurement for two

ships to be purchased in FY2002 and $285 million for cost growth in the first

four ships that have already been ordered. Both HASC and SASC authorized

a five-year block purchase of New Attack Submarines, reflecting a desire to

ensure adequate funding for the current program to split work between Newport

News Shipbuilding in Virginia and General Dynamics Electric Boat Division in

Connecticut. The appropriations conference agreement provides $460 million

for LHD-8, and, in a major change to the Administration request, it largely

follows the Senate on the LPD-17 – i.e., it eliminates $1.5 billion to procure two

ships and instead provides $560 million only for advance procurement. The

conference report also specifically authorizes continued incremental funding for

LHD-8. The authorization conference agreement also approves $460 million in

incremental funding for LHD-8, but, in contrast to the appropriators, authorizers

approved the full $1.5 billion requested to procure two LPD-17s.

Army “Transformation”

The Army plan to develop a new medium weight force has been a matter of some

scrutiny in congressional hearings. Some legislators have asked whether a lighter,

more deployable force can also possess the firepower and survivability necessary for

higher intensity conflicts. The main questions, however, concern whether planned

CRS-24

programs have been adequately thought through and reviewed, whether the schedule

is achievable, and whether adequate funds are available. Army leaders acknowledge

a shortfall in long-term funding for the program. Some legislators have urged that

funds be restored for programs the Army trimmed in its effort to find money for the

medium weight force.

On an indirectly related issue, Congress has been particularly interested in

helicopter procurement plans. The Comanche scout helicopter continues to be a high

priority for the Army – Congress has, in the past, supported the program in the face

of efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to slow it down, and there remains

some concern that the program may again be slowed by funding constraints.

Congress has also, in the past, supported higher than requested production of

Blackhawk (UH-60) utility helicopters.

Congressional action: HASC and SASC both restored funds for the Army

“Grizzly” and “Wolverine” programs – i.e., programs that were cut to fund the

medium weight force. HAC and SAC restored funds for the Wolverine program

in the FY2001 defense appropriations, and the House added funds for Grizzly

to FY2000 supplemental appropriations. Though it did not revise funding,

SASC expressed concern about potential delays in the Crusader self-propelled

artillery program – an effort to lighten the Crusader is a part of the Army

transformation program. SAC went much further, reducing funding for the

Crusader program from $355 million to $200 million, and instructing that the

program be redirected to develop an entirely new, lighter vehicle compatible

with the Army transformation initiative. On the whole, Congress has proved to

be very supportive of the Army transformation effort. HASC, SASC, and SAC

added some funds for Army transformation-related programs, while HAC added

much more, including $800 million to equip a second brigade with mediumweight equipment. SASC, however, included a provision that the Army strongly

opposed requiring a side-by-side evaluation of alternative armored vehicles for

the interim medium-weight brigade.

The appropriations conference agreement (1) restores funds for the Wolverine

Heavy Assault Bridge, and another bill provides funds for Grizzly as FY2000

supplemental appropriations; (2) provides the full $355 million requested for

Crusader, but prohibits obligation of the funds until 30 days after DOD submits

an analysis of alternatives to Congress; (3) following HAC, provides $800

million above the request for a second Army medium-weight brigade and

includes other funds to accelerate acquisition of a light-weight armored vehicle;

and (4) adds funds for 8 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and fully funds

Comanche. The authorization conference agreement provides $750 million for

additional procurement and R&D on medium-weight armored vehicles. The

authorization conference also follows SASC, however, in requiring the Army to

carry out a test program to compare currently deployed armored vehicles with

new wheeled vehicles that the Army wants to buy before a third medium weight

brigade can be outfitted. Congressional support for an acceleration of the

Army’s transformation program is perhaps the biggest single story in this year’s

defense debate, though SASC’s insistence that the Army evaluate current

tracked armored vehicles for the medium-weight force may slow the program.

CRS-25

Department of Energy Security

Last year, in the wake of evidence of security lapses at Department of Energy

(DOE) facilities, Congress included in the defense authorization bill a measure

establishing an independent agency, called the National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA), within DOE to oversee counterintelligence and security.

Though it initially objected to the proposal, the Administration has now selected a

director for the agency. Congress has continued to review implementation of the new

security regime, and DOE security may remain an issue this year. (For a discussion

of nuclear weapons security issues, see CRS Report RL30143, China: Suspected

Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Data, by (name redacted). For a discussion of

DOE reorganization, see CRS Issue Brief IB10036, Restructuring DOE and Its

Laboratories: Issues in the 106th Congress, by William C. Boesman.)

Congressional action: HASC imposed some new constraints on DOE funding

under its jurisdiction, pending submission of a detailed program for

implementation of the NNSA. The SASC version of the bill included a separate

title, Title XXXI, that would establish regulations governing the NNSA intended

to ensure the agency’s independence from the Secretary of Energy. Among

other things, provisions would (1) set a specific term for the first head of the

agency, (2) permit the President to dismiss the agency head only for inefficiency,

neglect of duty, or malfeasance, (3) limit the ability of the Secretary of Energy

to reorganize, abolish, alter, consolidate, or discontinue any organizational unit

or component of the NNSA, and (4) prohibit pay of any DOE employee assigned

duties both within NNSA and within the rest of DOE. Several Senators objected

to these restrictions, but subsequent further security breaches at the Los Alamos

lab headed off any challenges on the floor. The authorization conference

agreement includes the Senate-passed provisions with some very slight, technical

revisions.

Cooperative Threat Reduction

The Administration has requested $458 million in the Defense Department for

the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program that provides demilitarization

assistance to states of the former Soviet Union. The Department of Energy budget

also includes almost $200 million for related DOE programs – $150 million for the

Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) program, $22.5 million for

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), and $17.5 million for the Nuclear Cities

Initiative (NCI). In the past, Congress has scrutinized the CTR and related programs

closely. Last year, Congress reduced funds for IPP and NCI and prohibited the use

of CTR funds to construct chemical weapons destruction facilities in Russia and

instead provided that funds should be used only to improve the security of chemical

weapons stocks. This year, the Administration is again requesting funds for chemical

weapons destruction facilities. (For an overview, see CRS Report 97-1027, NunnLugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues for Congress, by (name

redacted).)

Congressional action: HASC eliminated $35 million requested for chemical

weapons destruction in Russia, while SASC approved the funding provided

CRS-26

Russia guarantees long-term financing for the program and meets some other

conditions. SASC also imposed some conditions on Nuclear Cities Initiative

funding. SAC directed that $25 million of the funds provided be used continue

a program to dismantle and dispose of Russian nuclear submarines. The

appropriations conference agreement provides $443 million for CTR, and,

following SAC, allocates $25 million for submarines. The conference agreement

also follows the House authorization and eliminates the $35 million requested

for chemical weapons demilitarization. The authorization conference agreement

also approves $443 million for CTR.

Military Operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Colombia, and the Persian

Gulf

In all, the FY2001 budget request includes $4.2 billion for ongoing military

contingency operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf. The $2 billion

included for Kosovo was potentially a matter of some debate. Allied burdensharing

in Kosovo, in particular, has been a contentious issue. (For an extensive discussion,

see CRS Report RL30457, Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan

Colombia, Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and Other

Initiatives, by (name redacted), et al.; CRS Issue Brief IB98041,

Kosovo and U.S.

Policy, by (name r edacted) and (name redacted);

CRS Report RL30398, NATO

Burdensharing and Kosovo: A Preliminary Report, by (name redacted); CRS Issue Brief

IB10027, Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations, by Steven R. Bowman; and

CRS Issue Brief IB94040, Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement, by

Nina Serafino.

Congressional action: In the Senate, FY2000 funding for Kosovo peacekeeping

was added to FY2001 Military Construction bill, and that became the focus

debate over the mission. On May 18, however, the Senate eliminated from the

bill a measure sponsored by Sen. Byrd to require the withdrawal of U.S. troops

from Kosovo after July 1, 2001, unless Congress authorizes continued

deployment. In the House, the issue was addressed in action on the defense

authorization bill. On May 17, the House approved an amendment sponsored

by Representatives Kasich, Shays, Frank, Condit, and Bachus that would require

the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo by April 1, 2001 unless the

President certifies that U.S. allies have met certain burdensharing commitments.

This appears to be a major issue in the authorization conference. All of the

FY2001 defense bills, however, have approved requested funding for

contingency operations in Kosovo and elsewhere. The appropriations

conference agreement provides requested funding, with minor adjustments to

reflect reduced force levels in Bosnia, though $1.1 billion of the total provided

for contingency operations is designated as FY2000 emergency appropriations.

The authorization conference agreement does not include the House-passed

measure that would require troop withdrawals from Kosovo, though it does

include extensive reporting requirements concerning allied burdensharing.

Conferees also warned that Congress may mandate troop withdrawals in the

future if allies fail to meet their commitments.

CRS-27

Navy Live-Fire Testing at Vieques, Puerto Rico

In January, the White House announced an agreement with the government of

Puerto Rico to resolve the issue of Navy live-fire testing on the island of Vieques.

The plan calls for holding a referendum sometime between August 2000 and January

2001 on the future of Navy activities on the island, a $40 million economic

development program for the island, and, depending on the outcome of the

referendum, either transfer of Navy property to the General Services Administration

for cleanup and disposal or an additional $50 million economic development program.

Implementing the President’s plan would require congressional approval of landtransfer legislation, the initial $40-million funding request for Vieques, and (if the

referendum supports continued training on the island) the additional $50-million

funding request for Vieques. The House Appropriations Committee included $40

million for Vieques in its version of the FY2000 supplemental appropriations bill

(H.R. 3908). (For a further discussion see CRS Report RS20458, Vieques, Puerto

Rico Naval Training Range: Background Information and Issues for Congress, by

Ronald O’Rourke.)

Congressional action: SASC supported most elements of the Administration’s

agreement on Vieques, but HASC did not. SASC authorized both the $40

million development program and, with conditions, the additional $50 million,

though it did address a part of the agreement transferring land on the opposite

side of the island from the firing range to Puerto Rico. HASC approved the

requested $40 million, but not the additional $50 million, and it included a

provision prohibiting transfer of land on the opposite side of the island if the

referendum rejects continued live-fire training. On May 18, however, the full

House approved an amendment by Representative Skelton repealing the HASC

provisions. The authorization conference agreement includes measures to

implement the Administration plan.

Social Issues

Social issues, such as abortion, gays in the military, and the role of women in the

armed forces, have frequently been matters of debate in defense funding bills in recent

years. Two years ago, gender integrated training was a major issue. Last year

Congress debated whether to lift a ban on abortions in military hospitals overseas.

This year, gays in the military is again a focus of attention, though there has not been

any specific proposal in Congress to revise current policy.

Congressional action: The HASC military personnel subcommittee failed, on a

tie vote, to approve an amendment by Representative Sanchez to remove the

prohibition on abortions in military hospitals abroad, and the full committee later

rejected the same amendment. On May 18, the full House rejected a similar

Sanchez amendment. HASC also approved an amendment offered by

Representative Bartlett to require Congress to be notified 120 days before

implementation of any plan to allow women to serve on Navy submarines. On

June 20, the Senate tabled, by a 50-49 vote, an amendment to the authorization

bill by Senators Murray and Snowe to repeal the restriction on use of military

facilities for privately funded abortions.

CRS-28

Base Closures

Secretary of Defense Cohen has again urged Congress to approve more rounds

of military base closures, now starting in 2003. Officials argue that cuts in the defense

infrastructure have lagged far behind cuts in the size of the force and that funding for

major weapons programs in the future depends on improving efficiency over the next

few years. For the past three years, Congress has rejected additional base closure

rounds. In part, opponents have complained that the White House politicized the base

closure process in 1995 when it acted to keep aircraft maintenance facilities in Texas

and California open as privately run operations after the Base Closure Commission

had recommended their closure. (For a discussion, see CRS Report RL30440,

Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand?, by (name redacted); and CRS

Report RL30051, Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by (name re

dacted).)

Congressional action: Neither SASC nor HASC addressed the issue of base

closures, and on June 7, by a vote of 35-63, the Senate rejected an amendment

to the authorization bill by Senators Levin and McCain to authorize additional

closure rounds in 2003 and 2005.

China Policy

In recent years, must-pass defense bills, particularly the defense authorization,

have been used as a vehicle for measures regarding technology transfers to China and

other China policy matters, and it was widely expected that security relations with

Taiwan, in particular, could be a matter of debate this year. Earlier this year, the

House approved H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, that would

require expanded U.S.-Taiwan military exchanges and establishment of direct military

communications and that would mandate annual reports on the security situation in

the Taiwan Strait. The bill as passed did not mandate sale of particular kinds of

weapons to Taiwan, but China reacted very negatively to the measure and warned that

it would “respond strongly” if advanced weapons were sold to Taiwan. The Senate

has not yet taken up its version of the bill, S. 693. On February 21, the PRC

government issued a White Paper, “The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue,”

which offered a mix of conciliatory gestures and a new ominous-sounding threat that

if Taiwan authorities indefinitely delay cross-Strait talks, this may prompt use of

force. (For an overview, see CRS Issue Brief IB98018, China-U.S. Relations, by

Kerry B. Dumbaugh; CRS Issue Brief IB98034, Taiwan: Recent Developments and

U.S. Policy Choices, by Kerry B. Dumbaugh; CRS Report RS20365, Taiwan:

Annual Arms Sales Process, by (name redacted); CRS Report RS20483,Taiwan:

Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, by (name redacted); CRS Report RL30341,

China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy – Key Statements from

Washington, Beijing, and Taipei, by (name redacted); and CRS Report RL30379,

Missile Defense Options for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan: A Review of the

Defense Department Report to Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and

(name redacted).)

Congressional action: HASC urged the Administration to establish a Center for

the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense University, as was

CRS-29

authorized last year. But China policy in general was not addressed this year’s

defense bills.

The Revolution in Military Affairs/Unmanned Combat Systems

All of the military services have been pursuing changes in military technology

that have been loosely described as elements of a “revolution in military affairs.”

Periodically, some Members of Congress have urged greater efforts to pursue radical

changes in weaponry and in military doctrine, but with few specific proposals. This

year, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner has joined the

discussion, urging the services to pursue development of unmanned systems, both for

ground and for aerial combat. In statements to the press, Senator Warner has said

that he plans to set a goal of having one-third of all deep strike aircraft unmanned by

2010 and one-third of all ground combat vehicles unmanned by 2015.11 This would

require dramatic changes in current military R&D programs.

Congressional action: SASC cited its interest in harnessing new technologies as

a rationale for several measures, including increased funding for unmanned aerial

vehicles for surveillance and related missions (though not for combat), increased

funding for counter-terrorism and protection against cyber-warfare, an increased

R&D funding. SASC also included a provision requiring the Defense

Department to develop a plan aimed at meeting the ambitious goals for use of

unmanned combat systems that Senator Warner laid out – i.e., that unmanned

systems will constitute one-third of deep-strike aircraft by 2010 and one-third

of ground combat vehicles by 2015. The authorization conference agreement

approves funds for a number of programs designed to strengthen domestic

defenses against terrorism, biological weapons, and information warfare and to

encourage development of advanced technologies. The conference agreement

also includes the Senate provisions on the use of unmanned combat systems.

Legislation

Budget Resolution

H.Con.Res. 290 (Kasich)

A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United

States government for FY2001, revising the congressional budget for the United

States government for FY2000, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for

each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Ordered to be reported, March 14, and

reported by the House Budget Committee (H.Rept. 106-530), March 20, 2000.

Approved by the House, with amendments, (211-207), March 23, 2000. Taken up by

the Senate, which substituted the text of S.Con.Res. 101, and passed by the Senate

(51-45), April 7, 2000. Conference report filed (H.Rept. 106-577), April 12, 2000.

See “Warner Pledges to Increase Defense Budget in Coming Years,” Inside the Pentagon,

February 10, 2000.

CRS-30

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

13, 2000.

S.Con.Res. 101 (Domenici)

An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the

United States government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Ordered favorably

reported by the Senate Budget Committee, March 30, 2000. Considered by the

Senate, April 4-7, 2000. Incorporated as a substitute amendment into H.Con.Res.

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

Supplemental Appropriations

H.R. 3908 (C.W. Bill Young)

An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Reported by the House

Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 106-521), March 14, 2000. Approved by the

House of Representatives, with amendments (263-146), March 30, 2000.

Defense Authorization

H.R. 4205 (Spence)

A bill to authorize appropriations for FY2001 for military activities of the

Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel

strengths for FY2001, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the Armed

Services Committee, May 10, 2000. Reported by the Armed Services Committee

(H.Rept. 106-616), May 12, 2000. Considered by the full House, May 17-18, 2000.

Approved by the House (353-63), May 18, 2000. Senate took up H.R. 4205,

substituted the text of S. 2549, as amended, and approved H.R. 4205 (97-3), July 13,

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

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

Conference report approved by the Senate (90-3), October 12, 2000. President

signed the bill into law (P.L. 106-398), October 30, 2000.

S. 2549 (Warner)

A bill to authorize appropriations for FY2001 for military activities of the

Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel

strengths for FY2001, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the Armed

Services Committee, May 9, 2000. Reported by the Senate Armed Services

Committee (S.Rept. 106-292), May 12, 2000. Considered by the Senate, June 6, 7,

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

substituted the text of S. 2549, and approved H.R. 4205 (97-3), July 13, 2000.

Defense Appropriations

H.R. 4576 (Jerry Lewis)

Making appropriations for FY2001 for the Department of Defense and for other

purposes. Approved by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, May 10,

2000. Approved and ordered reported by the House Appropriations Committee

(H.Rept. 106-644), May 25, 2000. Approved by the House (367-58), June 7, 2000.

CRS-31

Senate took up H.R. 4576, deleted all after the enacting clause and substituted the

text of S. 2593 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, June 8, 2000.

Considered by the full Senate June 8-9, and 12-13, 2000. Approved by the Senate

(95-3), June 13, 2000. Conference agreement filed (H.Rept. 106-754), July 17, 2000;

approved by the House (367-58), July 19, 2000; approved by the Senate (91-9),

July 27, 2000. President signed the bill into law (P.L. 106-259), August 9, 2000.

S. 2593 (Stevens)

An original bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. Reported by the

Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept 106-298), May 18, 2000. Senate

substituted the text of S. 2593 into H.R. 4576, June 8, 2000.

For Additional Reading

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief IB93056. Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations, by Steven R. Bowman.

CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues,

by (name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB98018. China-U.S. Relations, by Kerry B. Dumbaugh.

CRS Issue Brief IB92056. Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Current Policy Issues, by (name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB87111. F-22 Aircraft Program, by (name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB10012. Intelligence Issues for Congress, by Richard A. Best.

CRS Issue Brief IB98041. Kosovo and U.S. Policy, by (name redacted) and (name

redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB10027. Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations; by Steven

R. Bowman.

CRS Issue Brief IB93103. Military Medical Care Services: Questions and Answers,

by Richard A. Best.

CRS Issue Brief IB85159. Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues, by Robert

Goldich.

CRS Issue Brief IB10034. National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by (name

redacted) and Amy Woolf.

CRS Issue Brief IB98038. Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and

Control Issues, by (name redacted).

CRS-32

CRS Issue Brief IB94040. Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement, by

Nina Serafino.

CRS Issue Brief IB10036. Restructuring DOE and Its Laboratories: Issues in the

106th Congress; by William C. Boesman.

CRS Issue Brief IB92115. Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress, by

(name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB98034. Taiwan: Recent Developments and U.S. Policy Choices,

by Kerry B. Dumbaugh.

CRS Issue Brief IB98028. Theater Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by (name

redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB86103. V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft, by Bert H. Cooper.

CRS Issue Brief IB81050. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance, by

(name redacted).

CRS Reports

CRS Report 95-387. Abortion Services and Military Medical Facilities, by (name

redacted).

CRS Report RL30185. The Airborne Laser Anti-Missile Program, by (name r eda

cted) and (name redacted).

CRS Report 98-485. China: Possible Missile Technology Transfers from U.S.

Satellite Export Policy–background and Chronology, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30143. China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Data,

by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30341. China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy–Key

Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei, by (name redacted).

CRS Report 95-1126. Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs since 1970 Involving

U.S. Military Forces Withdrawals from Overseas Deployments, by (name reda

cted).

CRS Report 98-756. Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills: A

Chronology, FY1970-1999, by Gary K. Reynolds.

CRS Report RL30447. Defense Budget for FY2001: Data Summary, by Mary

Tyszkiewicz and (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30002. A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary Tyszkiewicz and (name r

edacted).

CRS-33

CRS Report RL30392. Defense Outsourcing: The OMB Circular A-76 Program,

by Valerie Grasso.

CRS Report RL30574. Defense Outsourcing: OMB Circular A-76 Policy and

Options for Congress – Proceedings of a CRS Seminar, by Valerie Grasso.

CRS Report 97-316. Defense Research: A Primer on the Department of Defense’s

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Program, by (name r

edacted).

CRS Report 98-873. Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccination Program, by

Steven R. Bowman.

CRS Report RL30639. Electronic Warfare: EA-6B Aircraft Modernization and

Related Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS20203. The Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative for the Former

Soviet Union: Administration Proposals for FY2000, by Amy Woolf and (nam

e redacted).

CRS Report RL30113. Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues, by

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL30172. Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,

1798-1999, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30563. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status,

and Issues, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS20125. Kosovo: Issues and Options for U.S. Policy, by Steven J.

Woehrel.

CRS Report RL30624. Military Aircraft, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Program:

Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30051. Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by (name

redacted).

CRS Report 98-823. Military Contingency Funding for Bosnia, Southwest Asia, and

Other Operations: Questions and Answers, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30184. Military Interventions by U.S. Forces from Vietnam to

Bosnia: Background, Outcomes, and “Lessons Learned” for Kosovo, by (nam

e redacted).

CRS Report 98-765. Military Youth Programs: ChalleNGe and STARBASE, by

(name redacted).

CRS-34

CRS Report RL30379. Missile Defense Options for Japan, South Korea, and

Taiwan: A Review of the Defense Department Report to Congress, by (name

redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

CRS Report 98-751. Missile Defense: Theater High Altitude Area Defense

(THAAD) Flight Testing, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30427. Missile Survey: Ballistic and Cruise Missiles of Foreign

Countries, by (name redacted).

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 (name redacted).

CRS Report RS20052. National Missile Defense: The Alaska Option, by (name red

acted).

CRS Report RL30398. NATO Burdensharing and Kosovo: a Preliminary Report,

Coordinated by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30045. Navy Attack Submarine Programs: Background and Issues

for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

CRS Report 98-359. Navy CVN-77 and CVX Aircraft Carrier Programs:

Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

CRS Report 97-700. Navy DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer Program: Background

Information and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

CRS Report RS20535. Navy Ship Procurement Rate and the Planned Size of the

Navy: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

CRS Report 97-1027. Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues

for Congress, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30457. Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia,

Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and Other Initiatives,

by Larry Q. Nowels, (name r edacted), (nameredacted),

Nina Serafino, and Melinda

T. Gish.

CRS Report RS20483. Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, by (name reda

cted).

CRS Report RS20370. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act and Underlying

Issues in U.S. Policy, by Kerry B. Dumbaugh.

CRS Report RL30231. Technology Transfer to China: An Overview of the Cox

Committee Investigation Regarding Satellites, Computers, and DOE

CRS-35

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 (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30345. U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Policy, Force Structure, and Arms

Control Issues, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS20412. Weapons of Mass Destruction–The Terrorist Threat, by

Steven R. Bowman and Helit Barel.

Other Resources

Congressional Budget Office, “Aging Military Equipment,” Statement of Lane

Pierrot, Senior Analyst, National Security Division, before the Subcommittee on

Military Procurement, Committee on Armed Services, United States House of

Representatives, February 24,1999.

Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals

for Fiscal Year 2001: A Preliminary Report, March 2000.

Congressional Budget Office, Budgetary and Technical Implications of the

Administration's Plan for National Missile Defense, by Geoffrey Forden, April

2000.

Congressional Budget Office, Budgeting for Defense: Maintaining Today’s Forces,

by Lane Pierrot, September 2000.

Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options for National Defense, March 2000.

Congressional Budget Office, Cooperative Approaches to Halt Russian Nuclear

Proliferation and Improve the Openness of Nuclear Disarmament, by David

Mosher and Geoffrey Forden, May 1999.

Congressional Budget Office, The Drawdown of the Military Officer Corps,

November 1999.

Congressional Budget Office, Making Peace While Staying Ready for War: The

Challenges of U.S. Military Participation in Peace Operations, December 1999.

Congressional Budget Office, “Modernizing Tactical Aircraft,” Statement of

Christopher Jehn, Assistant Director, National Security Division, before the

Subcommittee on Airland Forces, Committee on Armed Services, United States

Senate, March 10, 1999.

Congressional Budget Office, Paying for Military Readiness and Upkeep: Trends in

Operation and Maintenance Spending, by (name redacted), September 1997.

CRS-36

Congressional Budget Office, Review of “The Report of the Department of Defense

on Base Realignment and Closure,” July 1998.

Congressional Budget Office, What Does the Military “Pay Gap” Mean?, June 1999.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Cooperative Threat Reduction: DOD’s 1997-98

Reports on Accounting for Assistance Were Late and Incomplete,

GAO/NSIAD-00-40, Mar. 15, 2000.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “Defense Health Care: Observations on Proposed

Benefit Expansion and Overcoming TRICARE Obstacles,” by Stephen P.

Backhus, Director of Veterans’ Affairs and Military Health Care Issues, before

the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, House Committee on Armed Services,

GAO/T-HEHS/NSIAD-00-129, Mar. 15, 2000.

U.S. General Accounting Office, F-22 Aircraft: Development Cost Goal Achievable

If Major Problems Are Avoided, GAO/NSIAD-00-68, Mar. 14, 2000.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Development

Schedule Should Be Changed to Reduce Risks,” by Louis J. Rodrigues, Director

of Defense Acquisitions Issues, before subcommittees of the House Committee

on Armed Services. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-132, Mar. 16, 2000.

Selected World Wide Web Sites

Information regarding the defense budget, defense programs, and congressional action

on defense policy is available at the following web or gopher sites.

Congressional Sites/OMB

House Committee on Appropriations

[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]

Senate Committee on Appropriations

[http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/]

House Armed Services Committee

[http://www.house.gov/hasc/]

Senate Armed Services Committee

[http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/]

CRS Appropriations Products

[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]

Congressional Budget Office

[http://www.cbo.gov]

General Accounting Office

[http://www.gao.gov]

CRS-37

Office of Management and Budget

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/]

FY2000 Federal Budget Publications

[http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/index.html]

Defense Department and Related Sites

Defense LINK

[http://www.defenselink.mil/]

Defense Issues (Indexed major speeches)

[http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/]

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) FY2001 Budget Materials

[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2001budget/]

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) Budget

[http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget.htm]

Army Link — the U.S. Army Home Page

[http://www.army.mil/]

Navy On-Line Home Page

[http://www.navy.mil/index-real.html]

Navy Budget Resources

[http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/01pres/db_u.htm]

Navy Public Affairs Library

[http://www.navy.mil/navpalib/.www/subject.html]

United States Marine Corps Home Page

[http://www.usmc.mil/]

AirForceLINK

[http://www.af.mil/]

Air Force Financial Management Home Page

[http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/]

Air Force Budget Resources

[http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2001/afpb.html]

CRS-38

Appendix A: Summary Tables

Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2001

(budget authority in billions of current year dollars)a

Actual

FY1997

Actual

FY1998

Actual

FY1999

Estimate

FY2000

Request

FY2001

244.3

250.7

265.7

272.7

284.3

Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year

2001, Feb. 2000, and prior years.

These figures represent current year dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities and contract

authority, and reflect subsequent rescissions and transfers.

CRS-39

Table A2. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs, FY2001: Authorization

(amounts in millions of dollars)

FY2000 Estimate

Proc.

R&D

FY2001 Request

Proc.

R&D

House Authorization

Proc.

R&D

Senate Authorization

Proc. R&D

Authorization Conference

Proc.

R&D

Army

Apache Longbow Upgrade

—

781.4

37.1

—

744.5

17.4

—

744.5

35.8

—

902.5 37.9

—

762.0

27.4

Comanche Helicopter

—

463.1

—

614.0

—

614.0

—

— 614.0

—

614.0

Blackhawk Helicopter

215.9

9.8

86.8

29.9

157.9

29.9

283.1 29.9

211.7

29.9

M1A2 Abrams Tank Upgrade

120

633.1

36.5

512.8

82.7

—

512.8

82.7

—

512.8 82.7

—

468.4

82.7

Bradley FVS Base Sustainment

—

379.9

24.8

—

379.4

—

460.7

—

379.4

–

—

451.7

—

Crusader

—

266.2

—

355.3

—

355.3

—

— 355.3

—

355.3

Navy/Marine Corps

AV-8B Harrier Aircraft

300.5

38.4

226.6

38.1

—

226.6

38.1

226.6 38.1

262.2

38.1

F/A-18E/F Hornet

36 2,837.8 141.8

42 2,919.7

19.2

39 2,713.8

19.2

42 2,919.7 19.2

42 2,906.6

19.2

V-22 Osprey Aircraft

921.9 181.9

16 1,208.5

148.2

16 1,208.5 148.2

DDG-51 Destroyer

3 2,674.7 256.1

3 3,070.4

179.7

3 3,070.4 179.7

3 3,213.6 179.7

3 3,160.4 179.7

New Attack Submarine (NSSN)

—

746.6 372.0

1 1,711.2

320.4

1 1,711.2 320.4

1 1,706.2 320.4

LPD-17 Amphibious Transport

2 1,504.4

1.3

2 1,510.0

2.6

2 1,510.0

2.6

2 1,510.0

2.6

2 1,510.0

2.6

LHD-8 Advance Procurement

—

356.2

—

460.0

—

460.0

—

ADC(X) Auxiliary Cargo Ship

438.8

11.9

339.0

—

339.0

—

339.0

—

339.0

—

Air Force

B-2 Bomber Post-Production

—

112.4 297.9

–

61.3

48.3

—

61.3

48.3

—

61.3 53.3

—

61.3 115.3

C-17 Airlift Aircraft

15 3,354.9 159.0

12 2,890.9

176.4

12 2,916.8 176.4

12 2,890.9 176.4

12 2,840.9 176.4

C-130 Aircraft (incl. other services)

210.2

40.1

362.9

60.5

362.9

60.5

452.9 60.5

527.5

60.5

E-8C Joint Stars Aircraft

262.0 147.6

260.6

144.1

300.6 146.6

306.6 151.3

296.6 149.1

F-15 Aircraft

291.6 126.2

—

61.3

149.8

68.9

—

68.9

149.8

68.9

F-16 Aircraft

262.2 114.2

—

124.9

51.7 124.9

—

— 124.9

51.7 119.9

F-22 Aircraft

—

280.5 1,945.1

10 2,546.1 1,411.8

Joint/Defense-Wide

Airborne Laser (AF)

—

304.2

—

148.6

—

231.0

—

— 241.0

—

233.6

Joint Strike Fighter (AF, Navy)

—

489.0

—

856.6

—

871.6

—

— 685.3

—

688.7

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMDO)

—

361.9 3,424.7

—

444.0 3,943.2

—

509.2 4,633.2

—

444.0 4,183.7

—

440.0 4,207.3

Space-Based Infrared System (AF)

—

646.0

—

810.2

—

569.2

—

— 810.2

—

810.2

Guard & Reserve Equipment

—

150.0

—

*Notes: All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. For Ballistic Missile Defense, the military construction request is $103.5 million, which is often reported

as part of the total elsewhere. For a full breakdown of Ballistic Missile Defense funding, see Table A4 below. House authorization provides funds for the Airborne Laser

program in the Ballistic Missile Defense program.

CRS-40

Table A3. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs, FY2001: Appropriations

(amounts in millions of dollars)

FY2000 Estimate

Proc.

R&D

FY2001 Request

Proc.

R&D

House Appropriations

Proc.

R&D

Senate Appropriations Appropriations Conference

Proc. R&D

Proc.

R&D

Army

Apache Longbow Upgrade

—

781.4

37.1

—

744.5

17.4

—

744.5

17.4

—

744.5 29.4

–

762.0

29.4

Comanche Helicopter

—

463.1

—

614.0

—

614.0

—

— 614.0

–

614.0

Blackhawk Helicopter

215.9

9.8

86.8

29.9

223.5

29.9

143.1 29.9

211.8

29.9

M1A2 Abrams Tank Upgrade

120

633.1

36.5

512.8

82.7

—

512.9 120.0

—

512.9 87.2

–

468.4

Bradley FVS Base Sustainment

—

379.9

24.8

—

379.4

—

460.7

—

388.4

—

–

451.7

–

Crusader

—

266.2

—

355.3

—

355.3

—

— 200.3

–

355.3

Navy/Marine Corps

AV-8B Harrier Aircraft

300.5

38.4

226.6

38.1

226.6

38.1

302.2 25.0

262.2

25.0

F/A-18E/F Hornet

36 2,837.8 141.8

42 2,919.7

19.2

42 2,919.7

14.2

— 2,877.1 19.2

2,877.1

14.2

V-22 Osprey Aircraft

921.9 181.9

16 1,208.5

148.2

16 1,208.5 148.2

— 1,208.5 148.2

1,208.5 148.2

DDG-51 Destroyer

3 2,674.7 256.1

3 3,070.4

179.7

3 3,060.4 179.7

3 3,213.6 179.7

3,160.4 179.7

New Attack Submarine (NSSN)

—

746.6 372.0

1 1,711.2

320.4

1 1,706.2 320.4

— 1,711.2 320.4

1,706.2 320.4

LPD-17 Amphibious Transport

2 1,504.4

1.3

2 1,510.0

2.6

2 1,500.0

2.0

—

464.3

2.6

–

540.0

2.6

LHD-8 Advance Procurement

—

356.2

—

460.0

—

–

460.0

–

ADC(X) Auxiliary Cargo Ship

438.8

11.9

339.0

—

349.0

—

339.0

—

339.0

–

Air Force

B-2 Bomber Post-Production

—

112.4 297.9

–

61.3

48.3

—

61.3 145.0

—

61.3 53.3

–

61.3 130.3

C-17 Airlift Aircraft*

15 3,354.9 159.0

12 2,890.9

176.4

12 2,805.8 176.4

12 2,890.9 176.4

12 2,840.9 176.4

C-130 Aircraft (incl. other services)

210.2

40.1

362.9

60.5

439.2

60.5

527.5 60.5

527.5

60.5

E-8C Joint Stars Aircraft

262.0 147.6

260.6

144.1

290.6 151.3

306.6 151.3

296.6 149.1

F-15 Aircraft

291.6 126.2

—

61.3

400.0

68.9

—

66.3

400.0

68.9

F-16 Aircraft

262.2 114.2

—

124.9

—

133.9

183.0 125.9

122.0 123.9

F-22 Aircraft

—

280.5 1,945.1

10 2,546.1 1,411.8

10 2,546.1 2,546.1

2,546.1 1,411.8

Joint/Defense-Wide

Airborne Laser (AF)

—

304.2

—

148.6

—

148.6

—

— 241.0

–

233.6

Joint Strike Fighter (AF, Navy)

—

489.0

—

856.6

—

706.6

—

— 653.3

–

688.7

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMDO)

—

361.9 3,424.7

—

444.0 3,943.2

—

444.0 4,111.4

—

444.0

—

–

444.0 4,262.3

Space-Based Infrared System (AF)

—

646.0

—

810.2

—

810.2

—

— 810.2

–

810.2

Guard & Reserve Equipment

—

150.0

—

150.0

–

100.0

–

*Notes: All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. For Ballistic Missile Defense, the military construction request is $103.5 million, which is often reported

as part of the total elsewhere. For a full breakdown of Ballistic Missile Defense funding, see Table A4 below. The conference agreement provides C-17 procurement funds

in Title V, Revolving and Management Funds, rather than in Title III, Procurement.

CRS-41

Table A4. Ballistic Missile Defense Funding

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Procurement

Patriot PAC-3

National Missile Defense

C4I

Navy Area Defense

TOTAL PROCUREMENT

RDT&E

Applied Research

62173C Support Technologies

Advanced Technology Development

63173C Support Technologies

63174C Space Based Lasers

Demonstration and Validation

63861C THAAD Dem/Val

63868C Navy Theater Wide

63869C MEADS Concepts

63870C Boost Phase Intercept

63871C National Missile Defense

63872C Joint Theater Missile Defense

63873C Family of Systems Eng. & Integration

63874C BMD Technical Operations

63875C International Cooperative Programs

63876C Threat and Countermeasures

63xxxC Airborne Laser (from AF)

91585C Pentagon Reservation

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

64861C THAAD EMD

64865C Patriot PAC-3 EMD

64867C Navy Area Defense EMD

TOTAL RDT&E

Military Construction

TOTAL Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization

Related Programs

12419A Aerostat Joint Project Office

63319F Airborne Laser Program

64441F Space-Based Infrared System – High

64442F Space-Based Infrared System – Low*

FY2001

Request

House

Auth.

Senate

Auth.

Auth. House Senate Approp.

Conf. Approp. Approp.

Conf.

365.5

74.5

4.0

–

444.0

430.7

74.5

4.0

–

509.2

365.5

74.5

4.0

0.0

444.0

365.5

74.5

4.0

0.0

444.0

365.5

74.5

4.0

–

444.0

365.5

74.5

4.0

–

444.0

365.5

74.5

4.0

0.0

444.0

37.7

47.7

49.7

39.7

50.2

56.2

93.2

74.5

122.2

74.5

130.2

74.5

121.5

74.5

123.2

58.0

134.4

74.5

132.0

74.5

–

0.0

-–

–

0.0

382.7

407.7

442.7

462.7

512.7

442.7

462.7

63.2

53.5

63.2

53.5

–

-–

–

1,740.2 2,066.3 1,869.2 1,875.2 1,740.2 1,879.2 1,875.2

–

5.0

0.0

–

231.2

255.8

231.2

270.7

315.1

280.2

291.2

292.7

304.2

313.2

117.0

105.0

125.0

117.0

125.0

131.0

22.6

–

231.0

–

-–

–

4.8

549.9

81.0

274.2

3,943.2 4,633.2 4,183.7 4,207.3 4,111.4 4,243.4 4,262.3

103.5

4,490.6 5,245.9 4,731.1 4,754.7 4,658.9 4,790.8 4,809.7

25.0

148.6

569.2

241.0

25.0

0.0

569.2

0.0

27.0

241.0

569.2

241.0

27.0

233.6

569.2

241.0

25.0

148.6

569.2

241.0

27.0

241.0

569.2

241.0

Sources: H.Rept. 106-616; S.Rept. 106-292; S.Rept. 106-298; H.Rept. 106-754; H.Rept. 106-945.

*Note: The House authorization adds $241 million for SBIRS-Low to PE 63871C, National Missile Defense.

27.0

233.6

569.2

241.0

CRS-42

Table A5. National Defense Budget Request by Appropriations Bill

(millions of dollars)

Department of Defense, Military Activities (Subfunction 051)

Defense Appropriations Bill

Military Personnel

Operation and Maintenance

Procurement

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

Revolving and Management Funds

Total, Defense Appropriations Bill

Military Construction Appropriations Bill

Military Construction

Family Housing

Total, Military Construction Appropriations Bill

DOD Offsetting Receipts and Other Adjustments

Total DOD Military (Subfunction 051)

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Subfunction 053)

Energy and Water Appropriations Bill

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Former Sites Remedial Action

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Total Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Subfunction 053)

Defense-Related Activities (Subfunction 054)

Defense Appropriations Bill

Intelligence Community Management Staff

CIA Retirement and Disability Fund

VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

U.S. Antarctic Logistics Support (National Science Foundation)

Selective Service System

Transportation Appropriations Bill

Coast Guard Defense-Related Activities

Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill

Maritime Security Program

Radiation Exposure

Export Administration

Department of Justice Defense-Related

Telecommunications Compliance Fund

FBI Defense-Related

Total Defense-Related (Subfunction 054)

Total National Defense Budget Function (Function 050)

Estimate

FY2000

Request

FY2001

73,690

194,861

54,208

38,356

1,650

272,765

75,802

109,286

60,270

37,862

1,154

284,374

4,703

3,597

8,390

-1,237

279,918

4,549

3,85

8,034

-1,321

291,087

12,184

150

12,157

12,744

140

13,084

130

209

111

216

300

341

292

1,202

293,283

300

1,250

305,421

Source: Department of Defense Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year

2001, March 2000.

CRS-43

Table A6. National Defense Budget Function Funding in the

Congressional Budget Resolution

(current year dollars in billions)

Fiscal Year:

2001

2002

Administration Request

Budget Authority

305.4

309.2

Outlays

291.2

298.4

CBO Reestimate of Administration Request

Budget Authority

305.3

309.0

Outlays

293.6

302.1

House-Passed Congressional Budget Resolution

Budget Authority

306.3

309.3

Outlays

297.6

302.0

Difference from Reestimated Request

Budget Authority

+1.0

+0.3

Outlays

+4.0

-0.1

Senate-Passed Budget Resolution

Budget Authority

309.8

309.1

Outlays

296.1

302.3

Difference from Reestimated Request

Budget Authority

+4.5

+0.1

Outlays

+2.5

+0.2

Budget Resolution Conference Agreement

Budget Authority

309.9

309.2

Outlays

296.7

303.2

Difference from Reestimated Request

Budget Authority

+4.6

+0.2

Outlays

+3.1

+1.1

Sources: H.Con.Res. 290; S.Con.Res. 101.

2003

2004

2005

315.6

307.4

323.4

316.5

331.7

330.7

315.4

309.3

323.1

317.4

331.4

327.8

315.6

309.4

323.4

317.6

331.7

328.1

+0.2

+0.1

+0.3

+0.2

+0.3

315.5

309.4

323.2

317.5

331.5

328.0

+0.1

315.6

309.8

323.4

317.9

331.7

328.3

+0.2

+0.5

+0.3

+0.5

+0.3

+0.5

CRS-44

Table A7. Administration National Defense Budget Function Projection by

Appropriations Title, Budget Authority, FY1999-2005

(current year dollars in billions)

Actual

Est.

Proj.

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005

Department of Defense (military activities only)

Military Personnel

70.6

73.7

Operation & Maintenance

105.0

104.9

Procurement

50.9

54.2

RDT&E

38.3

38.4

Military Construction

5.4

4.8

Family Housing

3.6

Other

4.6

0.4

Subtotal, Department of Defense

278.4

279.9

Department of Energy

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

12.6

12.2

Other Agencies

Defense-Related Activities

1.1

1.2

292.1

293.3

Total, National Defense

75.8

109.3

60.3

37.9

4.5

3.5

-0.2

291.1

78.4

107.5

63.0

38.4

4.3

3.7

-0.5

294.8

80.4

109.1

66.7

37.6

3.8

3.9

-0.5

300.9

83.1

112.2

67.7

37.5

4.6

4.0

-0.7

308.3

85.6

114.8

70.9

36.4

5.4

4.1

-0.7

316.4

13.1

13.2

13.4

13.8

13.9

1.3

305.4

1.3

309.2

1.3

315.6

1.3

323.4

1.4

331.7

Sources: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States

Government, Fiscal Year 2001, Feb. 2000.

CRS-45

Table A8: FY2000 Supplemental Appropriations for the Department of Defense

(millions of dollars)

Request

Operation and Maintenance, Defense Wide

Natural Disaster-Related Expenses

27.4

Vieques-Related Activities

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund

Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo (KFOR)

2,025.4

Military Support to the International Force in East

25.0

Timor

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

Support of Plan Colombia FY2000-FY2001

98.4

Aircraft Procurement, Army

Airborne Reconaissance Low (ARL) Aircraft

–

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

Foreign Emergency Support Team Aircraft

73.0

Tactical Aviation Shortfalls [by transfer, non-additive]

–

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

M1A2 Tank Upgrades [by transfer, non-additive]

–

Military Construction, Defense-Wide

Forward Operating Location (FOL), Manta, Ecuador

38.6

FOL, Aruba

–

FOL, Curacao

–

Military Construction Plan and Design

–

Military Construction

Army Reserve Center, Greenville, NC, Storm Damage

–

Army National Guard, Gulfport, MS, Storm Damage

–

Family Housing, Storm Damage

–

National Missile Defense Planning

–

Military Construction & Family Housing Storm

–

Damage

Land Acquisition, Blount Island, FL

–

Rescission of FY1996 Military Construction Funds

–

Defense Working Capital Fund (Petroleum Cost Growth)

–

Defense Health Program

Increased TRICARE Contract Costs

–

FY2001 DHP Costs/General Provision, DHP

–

Basic Allowance for Housing (Avail. to 9/30/01)

–

Overseas Supplemental Food Program (Avail. to 9/30/01)

–

Recruiting, Advertising, and Retention (Avail. to 9/30/01)

–

Depot Level Maintenance and Repair (Avail. to 9/30/01)

–

High-Priority Support to Deployed Forces (Avail. to 9/30/01)

Operation and Maintenance

–

Procurement

–

RDT&E

–

Biometrics Information Assurance

–

Patriot Missile Enhancement Program

–

Operation Walking Shield

–

East Timor and Mozambique Humanitarian Assistance

–

Macalloy [transfer to EPA, non-additive]

–

Utah Olympic Games Support

–

Rescissions of Lapsing Prior Year Funds

–

2,287.8

Total, DOD Supplemental Appropriations

House Versus

Passed Request

Senate Versus

Conf. Versus

Passed Request Approp. Request

115.9

40.0

128.2 +100.8

40.0 +40.0

2,025.4

25.0

+88.5

+40.0

0.0 1,825.4

0.0

25.0

128.2

40.0

+100.8

+40.0

-200.0 2,025.4

0.0

25.0

0.0

185.8

+87.4

85.7

-12.7

154.1

+55.7

–

30.0

+30.0

30.0

+30.0

73.0

0.0

[90.0] [+90.0]

73.0

–

0.0

–

73.0

90.0

0.0

+90.0

[125.0] [+125.0]

–

163.7

+163.7

61.3

10.3

43.9

1.1

+22.7

+10.3

+43.9

+1.1

61.3

10.3

43.9

1.1

+22.7

+10.3

+43.9

+1.1

61.3

10.3

43.9

1.1

+22.7

+10.3

+43.9

+1.1

12.3

–

6.7

–

+12.3

–

+6.7

–

12.3

9.1

4.7

1.0

–

+12.3

+9.1

+4.7

+1.0

–

1.0

19.0

–

+1.0

+19.0

–

1,556.2 +1,556.2

–

35.0

+35.0

–

-35.0

964.3 +964.3 1,556.2 +1,556.2

854.5 +854.5

750.0 +750.0

221.0 +221.0

10.0 +10.0

600.6 +600.6

1,205.6 +1,205.6

–

695.9 +695.9

–

615.6

695.9

27.0

–

357.3

220.0

+615.6

+695.9

+27.0

0.0

+357.3

+220.0

738.9 +738.9

–

96.0

+96.0

405.8 +405.8

–

344.9 +344.9

68.0 +68.0

–

63.0

+63.0

–

7.0

+7.0

7.0

+7.0

–

125.0 +125.0

–

0.3

+0.3

0.3

+0.3

–

61.5 +61.5

61.5

+61.5

–

[9.6] [+9.6]

–

8.0

+8.0

8.0

+8.0

–

– -286.6 -286.6

9,011.2 +6,723.4 4,213.0 +1,925.2 6,757.0 +4,469.2

Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2001: Appendix, Feb. 2000;

House Appropriations Committee; House Rules Committee; H.Rept. 106-521; S.Rept. 106-290; H.Rept. 106-710.

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.