Appropriations for FY2000: Military Construction
Released: 1999-08-23T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

The conference committee for military construction appropriations printed itsconference report ( H.Rept. 106-266 ) on July 27, 1999. The conference report agreedto a total $8.4 billion military construction appropriation, which is $776 million lessthan current FY1999 funding. The conference split the difference between theSenate-approved $8.3 billion and House-approved $8.5 billion amounts. The Housepassed the conference report on July 29, 1999, by a vote of 412-8. The Senatepassed the conference report on August 3, 1999, by voice vote. The bill became law( P.L. 106-52 ) on August 17, 1999.

Background: Content of Military Construction Appropriations and Defense Authorization Bills

The Department of Defense (DOD) manages the world's largest dedicatedinfrastructure, covering over 40,000 square miles of land and a physical plant worthover $500 billion. The military construction appropriations bill provides a large partof the funding to maintain this infrastructure. The bill funds construction projectsand real property maintenance of the active Army, Navy & Marine Corps, Air Force,and their reserve components; defense-wide construction; U.S. contributions to theNATO Security Investment Program (formerly called the NATO InfrastructureProgram); and military family housing operations and construction. The bill alsoprovides funding for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account, whichfinances most base realignment and closure costs, including construction of newfacilities for transferred personnel and functions, and environmental cleanup atclosing sites.

The military construction appropriations bill is only one of several annual pieces of legislation that provide funding for national defense. Other major legislationincludes (1) the defense appropriations bill, that provides funds for all militaryactivities of the Department of Defense, except for military construction; (2) thenational defense authorization bill, that authorizes appropriations for nationaldefense (1) , and (3) the energy and water developmentappropriations bill, that providesfunding for atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. Two otherappropriations bills, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies and Commerce-Justice-State,also include small amounts for national defense. In addition, the energy and waterdevelopment appropriations bill provides funds for civil projects carried out by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The annual defense authorization bill authorizes all the activities in the defense appropriation measures described above. Therefore, major debates over defensepolicy and funding issues, including military construction can be also found in theauthorization bill. Since issues in the defense authorization and appropriations billsintertwine, this report highlights salient parts of the authorization bill, along with themilitary construction appropriation process.

The separate military construction appropriations bill dates to the late 1950s when a large defense build-up occurred in response to intercontinental ballisticmissile threats and the Soviet launch of Sputnik. Defense construction spendingsoared, as facilities were hardened, missile silos were constructed, and otherinfrastructure was built. The appropriations committees established militaryconstruction subcommittees to deal with this new level of activity. Consequently, theseparate military construction bill was created. The first stand-alone militaryconstruction bill was in FY1959, P.L. 85-852. Previously, military constructionfunding was provided through annual defense appropriations or supplementalappropriations bills.

Military construction appropriations are the major, but not the sole, source of funds for facility investments by the military services and defense agencies. Thedefense appropriations bill provides some funds for real property maintenance inoperation and maintenance accounts. In addition, funds for construction andmaintenance of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation-related facilities are partiallyprovided through proceeds of commissaries, recreation user fees, and other income.

Most funds appropriated by Congress each year must be obligated in that fiscal year. Military construction appropriations are an exception, since these funds aremade available for obligation for five fiscal years.

Consideration of the military construction budget starts when the President's budget is delivered to the Congress in February. For FY2000, the Presidentrequested $5.4 billion in funding for the military construction program and advanceappropriations (2) request of $3.1 billion to be scoredin FY2001.

Status

Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of theFY2000 military construction appropriation.

Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations,FY2000

Military Construction Appropriations

Conference Action. On July 27, 1999, the conference committee released its military construction appropriationsreport, H.Rept. 106-266 . The conference report agreed to a total $8.4 billion militaryconstruction appropriation, which is $776 million less than current FY1999 funding. The conference split the difference between the Senate- approved $8.3 billion andHouse-approved $8.5 billion amounts.

The House passed the conference report on July 29, 1999, by a vote of 412-8. The Senate passed the conference report on August 3, 1999, by voice vote. The billbecame law ( P.L. 106-52 ) on August 17, 1999.

Senate Action. On June 10, 1999, the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) finished marking up its version of theFY2000 military construction bill, S. 1205 ( S.Rept. 106-74 ). The Senatepassed the bill with no amendments on June 16, 1999, by a vote of 97-2.

The SAC decided, as written in its report ( S.Rept 106-74 ) to:

fully fund the President's budgetrequest,

reject the advance appropriationsproposal,

direct DOD to fully fund future military construction projectsin the future,

cut "excess" funding for construction contingencies( S. 1205 , Sec. 125),

create a new Family Housing Revitalization Transfer Fund tofund family housing improvement projects, and

recommend only $25 million for the Family HousingImprovement Fund, based on adjusted estimates of number of housing privatizationprojects.

The SAC report also highlighted the Committee's concern over the Pentagon's acquisition and planning for forward operating locations for drug interdiction andcounter-drug activities. The proposal was to construct three bases in Costa Rica,Ecuador, and Curacao using funds from the "Drug Interdiction and Counter-drugActivities, Defense" appropriations. The SAC believes that it is premature toappropriate funds for these bases until Congress has been provided a long-rangemaster plan for each location. The Committee directed the Pentagon to submit futurerequests for specific military construction projects in support of drug interdiction andcounter-drug activities as a part of the budget request for military construction. Therefore, the Committee only recommended $5.0 million of planning and designfunds, instead of the $42.8 million that the Pentagon requested.

House Action. On July 2, 1999, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) finished marking up its version of theFY2000 military construction bill, H.R. 2465 ( H.Rept. 106-221 ). TheHouse passed the bill with no amendments on July 13, 1999, by a vote of 418-4. TheHAC decided, like the SAC, to:

fully fund the President's budget request,

reject the advance appropriationsproposal,

direct DOD to fully fund future military construction projectsin the future, and

cut "excess" funding for construction contingencies( H.R. 2465 , Sec. 128).

Authorization Process

On May 14, the Senate Armed Services Committee's (SASC) FY2000 defense authorization bill ( S. 1059 ) rejected the Administration's advancedappropriations request and instead approved the entire $8.5 billion request and added$250 million. The SASC included $200 million in high-priority projects submittedby the military services that were not funded in the President's request and more than$140 in quality of life projects such as barracks, family housing, and childdevelopment centers. On May 27, 1999, the Senate approved its version of theFY2000 defense authorization bill, S. 1059 , by a vote of 92-3. S. 1059 passed the House, in lieu of H.R. 1401 , on June 14,1999. The conference report was filed in the House, H.Rept. 106-301 , on August 5,1999.

On May 19, the House Armed Services Committee's (HASC) FY2000 defense authorization bill ( H.R. 1401 ) rejected the Administration's advancedappropriations request and instead approved the entire $8.5 billion request and added$100 million. The HASC added nearly $1.1 billion to the President's militaryhousing request for military family housing, which the committee sees as a priority. On June 10, 1999, the House passed its version H.R. 1401 , on a voteof 365 - 58.

On July 1, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Installations and Facilities had a hearing on economic development conveyances. The hearing wasbased on a Pentagon proposal to amend the statutory framework governing theeconomic development conveyance process for real property affected by the BaseRealignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The proposal would give no-costconveyances to local authorities to spur job creation and facility reuse. Onedownside is that the Pentagon will recoup less money from the BRAC process, andthis could lead to the need for direct appropriations to help transition the no-costconveyance properties. The Senate went ahead and added the Pentagon's proposalin its version of the defense authorization bill.

The conference report of the defense authorization bill was completed on August 5, 1999.

Key Policy Issues

Ongoing Congressional Concerns

Split Funding and Advance Appropriations Proposal for the FY2000 Military Construction Budget Request. (3) The Defense Department's FY2000 military construction budget plan includes $8.5billion worth of projects, but the Administration is requesting only $5.4 billion inappropriations. The remaining $3.1 billion is requested as advance appropriationsto be scored as new budget authority in FY2001. This $3.1 billion is money thatnormally would not be necessary for the approved projects until after the initial yearof availability. Typically, military construction funds are available for obligation forfive years, and only part of the money is obligated in the initial year of availability.

The Defense Department's normal practice -- known as the "full funding" policy (4) -- has been to request all of the fundingneeded for each military constructionproject in a single annual appropriation, though some projects have occasionally beenfunded incrementally. The request to provide "split funding" for FY2000 projects isnot a change in policy, but a one-time exercise done only because of budget rules --the intent is to reduce requested budget authority in FY2000, when caps ondiscretionary funding will remain in place, and restore the funding in FY2001, when,presumably, the caps will be adjusted upward.

The Administration took this unusual step to help the DOD fund $12.6 billion in additions to the FY2000 budget, compared to last year's plan for FY2000. The$12.6 billion in added defense programs for readiness and modernization lead to anincrease of only $4.1 billion in the defense budget "topline." The remaining $8.5billion in added programs is offset by (1) $3.8 billion in inflation and fuel pricesavings, (2) $1.6 billion in proposed rescissions of prior year funds and (3) $3.1billion from FY2000 military construction program's split funding proposal.

Some observers believe that the House and Senate will look for alternatives to the Administration's proposal in order to fully fund the FY2000 military constructionprogram. Because advance appropriations commits future funding, it also limitscongressional discretion on those budget items in the future. In the FY1999 militaryconstruction budget debate, the defense appropriations and authorization committeesrejected an Army proposal for advance appropriations to fund several large militaryconstruction projects.

During the hearings on the FY2000 military construction plan, members of the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC)expressed skepticism that this will be only time they will be asked to defer fundingfor the military construction program. On March 23, Senator Burns, chairman of theSAC Subcommittee on Military Construction stated that fiscal challenges that led tothe FY2000 military construction proposal will be present in years to come. Hestated that this short-term fix could cost the American taxpayer more money as

contractors may assume more risk associated with building military facilities forDOD, potentially increasing construction costs over the longer term.

Although the DOD states that the advance procurement is a one-time budget fix, the committees are wary that partial funding could become a regular pattern in futuremilitary construction budgets. Partial funding, the committees fear, could compoundwhat they see as the problem of chronic underfunding of the military constructionprogram.

Long-term Planning for Military Construction. Throughout the 1990s, the Congress andAdministration have debated about whether military construction funding andlong-term planning are adequate. Members of Congress have complained that poorplanning and insufficient funding on the Pentagon's part has made it difficult for theCongress to insure that added military construction projects meet pressing priorities.

The Department of Defense uses a formal process called the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) to create its budget for Congress. (5) ThePPBS process is also used to prepare DOD's internal, long-term financial plan. Thelong-term plan extends over a six-year period and is known as the Future YearsDefense Plan (FYDP). In the 1990s, Congress has criticized the Pentagon'slong-term planning for military construction.

In hearings on the FY2000 military construction request, legislators expressedcontinuing concern over military construction planning and the sufficiency offunding. Rep. Joel Hefley, Chair of the Military Installations and FacilitiesSubcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee argued at a hearing onMarch 16, 1999 that the FY2000 budget request -- like the previous FY1997-99requests -- continues the poor planning and downward trend for military constructionbudgets. For the FY1997-2000 military construction requests, the Administrationrequested fewer funds than it had programmed in its budget assumptions in theprevious years' FYDP. This mismatch between plans and funding was cited in thecongressional criticism of the Pentagon's military construction planning. SinceFYDP and requested amount decreases each year for military construction, Mr.Hefley states that he is finding it difficult to take Pentagon future plans for militaryconstruction seriously. That sentiment was echoed by the Senate AppropriationsMilitary Construction Subcommittee chair -- Sen. Conrad Burns -- who expresseddismay at the lack of long-term planning seen in the FY2000 military constructionproposal.

Implementation of the Privatization of Military Family Housing Initiative. In testimony to the House ArmedServices Committee on March 9, 1999, Randall Yim -- Acting Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense (Installations) described the continuing problem of militaryfamily housing. He stated that approximately two-thirds of DOD's nearly 300,000family housing units need extensive renovation or replacement. Yim also testifiedthat fixing this problem using only traditional military construction methods wouldtake 30 years and cost as much as $16 billion.

Recognizing the severity of this problem four years ago, Congress passed theMilitary Housing Privatization Initiative in the FY1996 Defense Authorization Act( P.L. 104-106 ). This gave the Pentagon new authorities to obtain private sectorfinancing and expertise for military housing. The authorities are:

guarantees, both loan and rental;

conveyance or lease of existing property andfacilities;

differential lease payments;

investments, both limited partnerships and stock/bondownership; and

direct loans.

The legislation enables the new authorities to be used individually, or in combination. (6) The Department of Defense's HousingRevitalization Support Office(HRSO) is coordinating the implementation of the new authorities for each of theServices (7) . HRSO is staffed with 16 full-time housingand real estate experts fromeach of the Services and the Office of Secretary of Defense, along with consultantsupport. The Pentagon estimates that with these authorities, defense dollars can beleveraged to build three times the amount of housing units financed the traditionalway.

New policies and procedures in the Services and DOD were needed to implement the privatization initiative. A new mind-set of how to work withcommercial real-estate practices and practitioners had to be formed. For example,Office of Management and Budget had to determine rules (approved in June 1997)to account for government obligations with each of the authorities. Also, thePentagon needed to develop loan and loan guarantee concepts into actual documentsthat the private financial community would trust for investment grade financing,which took some time.

Progress with the privatization initiative has been slow. Rep. Joel Hefley, Chair of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee of the House ArmedServices Committee stated in a March 9, 1999 hearing that the Congress has beendisappointed in the pace of privatization implementation, especially as the expirationdate of February 10, 2001 (for the five-year test period of these authorities)approaches.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) highlighted some concerns with the privatization initiative when it reviewed DOD's military housing situation in July1998. (8) Initial evaluation of life-cycle costs ofprivatized housing versus traditionalmilitary housing showed a potential savings of only about 10% or less. The proposedlong-term time horizons for some privatization projects of 50 years or more broughtup concerns that the housing might be not needed in the that far into future. Also, theGAO pointed out the continuing weakness in the Pentagon planning for militaryhousing. GAO stated that housing requirements are not integrated with particularfacilities and community needs, that the plans underutilize the use of local housingand that there is poor communication between offices responsible for housingallowances and military housing construction. GAO recommended thatcomprehensive, better integrated plans could help maximize the privatizationinitiative while minimizing total housing costs.

Rep. Hefley also raised a serious policy issue in the Pentagon's current approachto the implementation of its military family housing privatization program. Heexpressed concern that the military departments -- particularly in the Army and theNavy -- were placing virtually all of their hopes for improving military familyhousing on privatization without being certain that it would work in all locations. Rep. Hefley pointed out that privatization was only one tool, along with regularmilitary construction funds, which could ameliorate family housing problems.

History and Context

The Funding Pattern for Military Construction Budgets. In recent years, the Congress has added significantamounts to annual Administration military construction budget requests. This hasbeen a recurring pattern in the 1990s. The President proposes what the Congresscalls an inadequate military construction budget, especially for Guard and Reserveneeds. The Congress then adds funding for military construction, with someattention to Guard and Reserve projects. For example, Congress added $479 millionin FY1996, $850 million in FY1997, $800 million in FY1998 and $875 million inFY1999 to the military construction accounts.

Congressional additions to the military construction budget have been common and controversial throughout the 1990s. Three themes explain the pattern ofrecurring congressional additions. First, some members of the military constructionsubcommittees have believed that military construction has been chronicallyunderfunded. This theme was echoed in recent hearings on the FY2000 budget andthe FY1999 and FY1998 reports from the House Appropriations Committee and thedefense authorizing committees. Second, often Congress has different priorities thanthe Administration, as reflected in frequent congressional cuts to overseasconstruction requests and contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program. Third, other Members of Congress, as Senator Bond commented during the floordebate on FY1996 military construction appropriations, believe that the Pentagoncounts on Congress to add money to Guard and Reserve programs. In recent years,Congress has added large amounts for National Guard and Reserve constructionprojects, including a peak amount of $401.8 million in FY1995. (See Table 4.)

Debate over congressional additions to the military construction budget involves several overlapping issues. Military construction proponents, including facilityadvocates in the military services, argue that military facilities have beensystematically underfunded for many years -- even, some say, in the midst of thebuildup of the early- to mid-1980s. This line of argument was prominent duringHouse Appropriations Committee mark-up of the FY1996 military construction bill. Some complained that the funding level was up 28% from the prior year, while othersdefended the increase as necessary to make up for previous shortfalls in funding fornew construction and maintenance. The FY1996 enacted amount for militaryconstruction peaked that year at $11.2 billion. The House report on the FY1997 bill( H.Rept. 104-591 ) cited a DOD backlog of deferred maintenance and repair forfamily housing alone that totaled over $4.5 billion dollars.

DOD facility managers have not met their goal to allocate 3% of the plant replacement value of DOD facilities for annual construction and maintenance (calledreal property maintenance at the Pentagon). Although this 3% goal is below theaverage for public facilities nationwide, actual DOD funding has typically run at 1to 2% of plant replacement value. For example, the Air Force testified on March 16,1999 to the House Armed Services Subcommittee for Military Installations andFacilities that the Air Force could budget only 1% for real property maintenance. This is why facility proponents welcome any congressional additions.

Finally, congressional military construction subcommittees -- authorization as well as appropriations subcommittees -- have frequently taken issue withAdministration military construction priorities. In the early 1990s, for example, thecommittees frequently reduced amounts requested for construction overseas -- on thegrounds that troop levels abroad should be reduced and that allied burden-sharingcontributions should increase -- and reallocated the funds to domestic projects. Inaddition, congressional committees have added unrequested funds for quality of lifeimprovements, such as day care centers and barracks renovation. The Congress hasargued that the military services have tended to neglect these areas in favor ofwarfighting investments.

The Debate Over Added Projects. Since the Congress has added significant amounts to military construction budgetsover the last 10 years, congressional debate has centered on how to prioritize worthyadditional projects.

In 1994, the Senate debate on the military construction appropriations bill focused the amount of congressional additions to the request despite constraints onoverall defense spending. Senator McCain, in particular, objected to the provisionof substantial amounts for projects that the Administration had not requested. Heargued that such projects largely represented "pork barrel" spending, and came at theexpense of higher priority defense programs. In Senate floor consideration of themilitary construction bill that year, the managers accepted a McCain amendment thatcalled for criteria to be applied to additional projects. His amendment included aprovision that any added project should be on the military lists of critical yetunbudgeted projects. The McCain amendment was not incorporated into the finalconference version of the bill, however, and the conference agreement provided over$900 million for unrequested construction projects.

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1995 ( P.L. 103-337 ), however, incorporated Senator McCain's criteria as a "Sense of the Senate" provision, (9) providing that the unrequested projects should be:

1. essential to the DOD's national security mission,

2. not inconsistent with the Base Realignment and Closure Act,

3. in the services' Future Years Defense Plan (see above),

4. executable in the year they are authorized and appropriated, and

5. offset by reductions in other defense accounts, through advice from theSecretary of Defense.

Since the 104th Congress, the House military construction authorizing and appropriations committees have also used similar criteria, in collaboration with thePentagon, to add projects to the military construction budget. Each potential projectneeds to pass the following criteria, similar to the McCain criteria: Is the projectessential to the DOD mission, consistent with BRAC plans, in the Future YearsDefense Plan and "executable" in the coming fiscal year? If the project can meetthose criteria, the military construction authorizing and appropriations committeesmay add the project.

Debate over congressionally-added projects continues. In debate on the FY1999 military construction appropriations conference report, Senator McCain continuedto discuss projects added by Congress. He noted that the Congress added 148domestic projects in all, at a cost of nearly $977 million. Senator McCain presentedhis list of questionable projects in the Congressional Record , in a letter to thePresident and on his web page http://www.senate.gov/~mccain/milcnf99.htm.

Major Funding Trends

The Administration has proposed to split funding for FY2000 militaryconstruction projects between the FY2000 and the FY2001 budgets. The budgetrequest for FY2000 is $5.4 billion, with an additional $3.1 billion in an advanceappropriations for future costs in FY2001. Adding the FY2000 request with theadvance appropriations request brings the total value of the proposed FY2000military construction program to $8.5 billion. This total continues a downward trendfrom the FY1996 level of $11.2 billion, the FY1997 level of $9.8 billion, the FY1998level of $9.3 billion and the FY1999 level of $8.7 billion. The FY2000 conferencereport recommends $8.4 billion.

Table 2 shows overall military construction program funding since FY1996. Table 3 breaks down the FY2000 request and FY2000 program value byappropriations account and compares it to FY1998 and FY1999 levels. Table 4 shows congressional military construction add-ons for Guard and Reserve projectsfrom FY1985-1999.

Legislation

Military Construction Appropriations

H.R. 2465 (Hobson, D.)

Makes appropriations for military construction, family housing, and baserealignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year endingSeptember 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported to House( H.Rept. 106-221 ), July 2, 1999. The House passed the bill with no amendments onJuly 13, 1999, by a vote of 418-4. Conference report ( H.Rept. 106-266 ) passedHouse July 29, 1999, by a vote of 412-8. Passed Senate August 3, 1999, by voicevote. The bill became law ( P.L. 106-52 ) on August 17, 1999.

S. 1205 (Burns, C.)

Makes appropriations for military construction, family housing, and baserealignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year endingSeptember 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported to Senate( S.Rept. 106-74 ), June 10, 1999. Passed Senate without amendment, (97-2), June16, 1999.

Defense Authorization

H.R. 1401 (Spence)

Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of theDepartment of Defense, for military construction, for defense activities of theDepartment of Energy, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the HouseArmed Services Committee ( H.Rept. 106-162 ), May 19, 1999. Rules CommitteeResolution, H.Res. 195 , reported to the House but then withdrawn, May27, 1999. Considered by House, June 9 and 10, 1999. Passed House, amended(365-58), June 10, 1999. On June 14, 1999, bill was laid on table in House (see S. 1059 for further action).

S. 1059 (Warner)

Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of theDepartment of Defense, for military construction, for defense activities of theDepartment of Energy, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the SenateArmed Services Committee, May 13, 1999. Report filed ( S.Rept.106-50 ), May 17,1999. Considered by Senate, May 24, 25, 26, and 27, 1999. Passed Senate, amended(92-3), May 27, 1999. Passed House, in lieu of H.R. 1401 , June 14,1999. Conference report filed in House, H.Rept. 106-301 , August 5, 1999.

Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations,FY1996-2000 (budget authority in millions of dollars)

Source: Actual FY1996-98 data and Request FY 2000 from Department of Defense (DOD), Financial Summary Tables , February 1999 and previous years' reports. Enacted FY2000 data from H.Rept. 106-266 .

Notes:

a. This is only part of the Administration's "split funding" request for FY2000. Therest of the proposed FY2000 military construction program would be funded byan advance appropriations of $3.1 billion in FY2001.

NA = not available yet

Table 3. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:FY1998-2000 (in thousands of dollars)

Source: FY1997-FY2000 Request from DOD, Financial Summary Tables , February1999. FY2000 Program Value from DOD, Military Construction, Family Housing,BRAC, FY2000 Program Profile by State/Location, February 1999.

Notes:

a. This is only part of the Administration's "split funding" request for FY2000. Therest of the proposed FY2000 military construction program would be funded by anadvance appropriations of $3.1 billion in FY2001.

b. The FY2000 Program Value is total value of military construction program, which includes program costs for FY2000, FY2001 and beyond. The FY2000 ProgramValue combines Family Housing Const. and Operation and Debt into single accountsfor the Services and Defense-wide.

Table 4: Mil. Con. Appropriations by Account - CongressionalAction (in thousands of dollars)

Sources: H.Rept. 106-221 , S.Rept. 106-74 and H.Rept. 106-266 .

Table 5: Congressional Additions to Annual Department of DefenseBudget Requests for National Guard and Reserve MilitaryConstruction, FY1985-99 (current year dollars in thousands)

Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years.

For Additional Information

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Reports

CRS Report RL30002(pdf) . A Defense Budget Primer , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30205 . Appropriations for FY2000: Defense , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30061. Defense Budget for FY2000: Data Summary , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 91-669. Military Construction: Current Controversies and Long-TermIssues , by Martin Cohen and [author name scrubbed].

Selected World Wide Web Sites

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), FY 2000 Budget Materials http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/FY2000budget/

House Committee on Appropriations http://www.house.gov/appropriations

Senate Committee on Appropriations http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/

CRS Appropriations Products Guide http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html#la

Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov

General Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov

Office of Management & Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/