Appropriations for FY1999: Defense
Released: 1998-12-18T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

The House approved a conference agreement on the FY1999 defense appropriationsbill ( H.R. 4103 ) by a vote of 369-4 on September 28, and the Senate approvedthe agreement by a vote of 94-2 on September 29. The House approved a conferenceagreement on the FY1999 defense authorization bill ( H.R. 3616 ) by a vote of373-50 on September 24, and the Senate approved the agreement by a vote of 96-2 onOctober 1. The President signed both bills into law on October 17 (the authorization is P.L.105-261 and the appropriations is P.L. 105-262 ). On October 20, the House, and, onOctober 21, the Senate, approved an omnibus appropriations bill for FY1999( H.R. 4328 ) that provides additional defense-related funding of $8.3 billion,including $1.9 billion for Bosnia operations, $1.3 billion for military readiness, $1.5 billionfor intelligence, $1 billion for missile defense, $1.1 billion for year 2000 fixes in the DefenseDepartment, $469 million for storm damage repairs, $525 million to purchase fissilematerials from Russia (a defense-related program of the Department of Energy), $529million for antiterrorism activities, and $42 million for defense counter-drug activities. ThePresident signed the bill into law ( P.L. 105-277 ) on October 21.

Background

The annual defense appropriations bill provides funds for military activities of theDepartment of Defense (DOD) -- including pay and benefits of military personnel, operationand maintenance of weapons and facilities, weapons procurement, and research anddevelopment -- and for other purposes. Most of the funding in the bill is for programsadministered by the Department of Defense, though the bill also provides (1) relatively small,unclassified amounts for the Central Intelligence Agency retirement fund and intelligencecommunity management, (2) classified amounts for national foreign intelligence activitiesadministered by the CIA and by other agencies as well as by DOD, and (3) very smallamounts for some other agencies. Five other appropriations bills also provide funds fornational defense activities of DOD and other agencies -- see Appendix B for an overview. The Administration's FY1999 budget included $270.6 billion for the national defense budgetfunction, of which $250.8 billion was requested in the defense appropriations bill.

Along with annual defense-related appropriations, Congress also acts every year on a national defense authorization bill. The authorization bill addresses defense programs inalmost precisely the same level of line item detail as the defense-related appropriations bills. Differences between the authorization and appropriations measures within each housegenerally concern only a few programs. Congressional debate over major defense policy andfunding issues usually occurs mainly in action on the authorization bill. Because thedefense authorization and appropriations bills are so closely related, this report trackscongressional action on both measures.

Status

Congress completed action on the annual defense authorization and appropriations billson October 1. The final status of action on these bills and on related legislation is as follows:

House and Senate 302(b) allocations: On May 14, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its initial allocation of funds to each of its 13subcommittees, and on May 22, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingstonannounced his proposed initial 302(b) allocations -- the full committee approved the initialallocations on June 16. These allocations, which are revised over the course of the year,ultimately determine how much money will be available for defense and other programsunder the jurisdiction of the appropriations committees. The final Senate allocations to thedefense subcommittee are $250.290 billion in budget authority and $244.942 billion inoutlays. These amounts are slightly below what the Administration had requested, whileallocations to the military construction subcommittee are somewhat above the request. Thefinal House allocations provide $250.499 billion in budget authority and $244.965 billionin outlays for the national security subcommittee. See Table B-1 in Appendix B, below, forallocations of all defense discretionary funds. See CRS Report 96-912, Brief Introductionto the Federal Budget Process , by [author name scrubbed], for a discussion of the role of 302(b)allocations in the budget process.

FY1999 House defense authorization bill: On May 6, the House National Security Committee finished marking up its version of the FY1999 defenseauthorization bill, H.R. 3616 , and the House approved the bill, withamendments, on May 21.

FY1999 Senate defense authorization bill: On May 7, the Senate Armed Services Committee completed marking up its version of the FY1999 defenseauthorization bill, S. 2057 . Floor action began on May 13-15 and resumed onJune 19, and the Senate passed the bill on June 25.

FY1999 defense authorization conference agreement: Conferees reached agreement on the authorization bill on September 17. The House approved theconference report on September 24 and the Senate on October 1. The President signed thebill into law ( P.L. 105-261 ) on October 17.

FY1999 House national security appropriations bill: On June 3-4, the House National Security Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of theFY1999 defense appropriations bill, and the full committee completed its markup andordered the bill, H.R. 4103 , to be reported on June 17. The House passed thebill on June 24.

FY1999 Senate defense appropriations bill: On June 2, the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY1999 defenseappropriations bill, and the full committee completed its markup and ordered the bill, S. 2132 , to be reported on June 4. The full Senate considered the bill,substituted its text into the text of H.R. 4103 , and passed H.R. 4103 , as amended, on July 30.

FY1999 defense appropriations conference report: Conferees announced agreement on the FY1999 defense appropriations bill on September 22. TheHouse approved the conference report on September 28, and the Senate on September 29. The President signed the bill into law ( P.L. 105-262 ) on October 17.

FY1999 congressional budget resolution: On April 2, the Senate approved S.Con.Res. 86 , its version of the annual congressional budgetresolution, which sets targets for budget authority and outlays for the overall national defensebudget function. The House approved its version, H.Con.Res. 284 , on June 5. A conference agreement on the resolution was never completed.

Supplemental defense appropriations for FY1998: On April 30, the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement on H.R. 3579 , whichprovides supplemental funding for military operations in Bosnia and Southwest Asia (i.e.,the Persian Gulf), for domestic and defense disaster relief, and for other purposes. ThePresident signed the bill into law ( P.L. 105-174 ) on May 1. The bill offsets the supplementalfunding for domestic programs with rescissions, but it does not offset the defense amounts. In all, the bill provides $2.7 billion for the Defense Department, including $481 million forBosnia, $1.3 billion for Southwest Asia, $393 million defense for disaster relief, and $513million for other defense programs. (For a full review of supplemental funding andrescissions, see [author name scrubbed], Coordinator, Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissionsfor FY1998 , CRS Report 98-123).

Defense-related supplemental appropriations for FY1999: On October 20, the House, and, on October 21, the Senate, approved an omnibus appropriationsbill for FY1999 ( H.R. 4328 ) that provides additional defense-related fundingof $8.3 billion, including $1.9 billion for Bosnia operations, $1.3 billion for militaryreadiness, $1.5 billion for intelligence, $1 billion for missile defense, $1.1 billion for year2000 fixes in the Defense Department, $469 million for storm damage repairs, $200 millionfor the defense health program, $525 million to purchase fissile materials from Russia (adefense-related program of the Department of Energy), $529 million for defenseantiterrorism activities, and $42 million for defense counter-drug activities. All of thesefunds are designated as emergency appropriations (see below for a discussion). The bill alsomakes rescissions of $67 million. (For a full discussion of defense and other supplementalappropriations see [author name scrubbed], Coordinator, Supplemental Appropriations: EmergencyAgriculture Aid, Embassy Security, Y2K Computer Conversion, and Defense , CRS IssueBrief 98044.)

1. Status of FY1999 Defense Appropriations

Key Budget and Policy Issues

Major Issues in House and Senate Action on FY1999 Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills

The conference agreements on the defense authorization and appropriations bills resolved a number of major issues, including:

Relations with China: The House approved several floor amendments to the authorization bill to limit satellite and missile technology exportsto China. The White House objected to several of the provisions, especially to a banon satellite exports. China was also a contentious issue in Senate debate on theauthorization bill. The Senate-passed bill included several statements of policy, butsome especially contentious China-related amendments offered by SenatorHutchinson were dropped during floor debate. China-related provisions were a majorissue in the authorization conference. The conference agreed to drop languagebanning the export of satellites to China but included provisions that would (1) takereview of technology exports to China away from the Commerce Department andreturn it to the State Department, (2) require advanced congressional notification ofsatellite sales to China along with a presidential justification for waiving humanrights-related limits on satellite transfers, and (3) prohibit export of missileequipment or technology to China unless the President certifies that the export willnot hurt the U.S. space launch industry and will not improve China's missile launchcapabilities.. The conference agreement also includes a House-passed measure thatwould prohibit the transfer of port facilities near San Diego to COSCO, a Chineseshipping company. The Senate-passed version of the defense appropriations billincluded a revised amendment by Senator Hutchinson condemning forced abortionsin China and requiring that foreign officials (from China or other nations) involvedin forced abortions, forced sterilization, or genital mutilation be denied visas to theUnited States. The appropriations conference agreement does not include thismeasure, but it contains a prohibition on DOD doing business with ChineseArmy-owned companies and requires a report on the security situation in the TaiwanStrait.

Base closures: Neither the House nor the Senate authorization bills approved new rounds of military base closures, as the Administration hadrequested. The Senate approved an amendment by Senators Inhofe and Dorgan thatwould make it somewhat more difficult for the Defense Department to realignmilitary bases in the absence of a congressionally established base closure process. DOD strongly objected to this provision. The conference agreement drops thisprovision -- according to press accounts, Sen. Inhofe agreed to drop it in return forconference acceptance of the House-passed provision regardingCOSCO.

Social issues: The House-passed authorization bill required the Army, Navy, and Air Force to separate men and women in basic training as theMarine Corps now does. The Senate-passed bill, in stark contrast, specificallyprohibited implementation of new policies to separate men and women in basictraining until after a congressionally established commission reports. In a key floorvote on June 24, the Senate rejected a Brownback amendment to incorporate theHouse language -- instead the Senate endorsed a substitute offered by SenatorSnowe that allows current integrated training practices to continue, though it wouldrequire additional steps to separate male and female sleeping quarters. This wasreportedly a major issue in the House-Senate authorization conference. Theconference ultimately adopted the Senate language but also included a "sense of theHouse" statement urging separate training units. On other social issues, the Houseauthorization included a measure applying to the Secretary of Defense and thePresident a requirement that commanders display "exemplary behavior," and theconference agreement includes a similar provision, but only as a "sense of the House"statement. Both the House and the Senate rejected floor amendments to eliminate thecurrent ban on abortions in military medical facilities.

Tritium production: The House-passed authorization bill included a measure that would prohibit the Defense of Energy (DOE) from buyingtritium for nuclear weapons from commercial nuclear reactors. Without this sourceof tritium, DOE would have to build new facilities to produce tritium in SouthCarolina. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost about $3billion over the next forty years to buy tritium from commercial sources and $10billion to buy it from new facilities. The Senate-passed authorization bill includeda provision allowing DOE to choose the long-term option. The conferenceagreement allows DOE to make the choice, but prohibits implementation of any planfor a year, which will allow Congress to review the decision again.

Active duty end-strength: The House-passed authorization bill rejected an Administration request to eliminate floors on active duty end-strengthlevels. The Senate version of the authorization bill and both House and Senateversions of the appropriations bill, however, all agreed to the Administration'sproposed reductions in end-strength. The authorization conference report agrees tothe Administration request.

Pay raise: The House-passed authorization provided a pay raise of 3.6% for military personnel, while the Senate version and both House and Senateversions of the appropriations bill initially provided only the requested raise of 3.1%. On June 25, however, the Senate approved an amendment to the authorization billby Senators Thurmond and Levin to increase the pay raise to 3.6%, offset by anacross-the-board reduction of R&D funds. Senators Stevens and Inouye, amongothers, cosponsored the amendment, and they subsequently offered an amendmentto provide the same pay raise on the defense appropriations bill. The authorizationand appropriations conference agreements provide a 3.6%raise.

Bosnia: The Administration requested $1.9 billion for Bosnia in FY1999 as emergency funding not subject to the $270.5 billion cap on defensespending under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The Senate-passed version of thedefense appropriations bill included the requested funding, while the House bill didnot. In addition, the SASC report on the authorization bill approved that amount andexplicitly stipulated that the funding should be provided as emergencyappropriations. The House-passed authorization bill did not address emergencyfunding, but instead included a provision to cap Bosnia spending at $1.9 billion, withthe services allowed to spend $100 million more, if necessary to protect U.S. troops-- the Administration strongly objected to this provision. In floor action on theauthorization, both houses considered and rejected measures to require thewithdrawal of U.S. troops from Bosnia by a specific date, but the Senate version ofthe authorization bill also included a sense of the Congress statement encouraging thePresident to establish conditions allowing a drawdown of forces in Bosnia. Theauthorization conference agreement specifically authorizes $1.9 billion in emergencyfunding for Bosnia and allows larger expenditures if the President certifies that thefunding is needed to meet U.S. national security needs and will not underminereadiness. The appropriations conference agreement did not include emergencyfunding for Bosnia, but it was later provided in a supplemental appropriationsmeasure included in the FY1999 omnibus appropriations bill.

Weapons priorities: Compared to past years, contentious weapons issues were few -- but there were some. The Administration requested justone C-130J aircraft and objected to the addition of more than $400 million for 7additional aircraft in the House authorization and appropriations bills -- the Senatebills added smaller amounts. The authorization and appropriations conferenceagreements provide funds for 7 aircraft, 6 more than requested. The House andSenate appropriations bills reduced funding for the Theater High Altitude AreaDefense (THAAD) system by substantial amounts in the wake of the most recent testfailure in May. Although the Administration agreed that the program should berestructured, it wanted to maintain funding. The authorization conference agreement,however, cuts $294 million and the appropriations conference agreement cuts $376million. The Senate authorization and appropriations bills reduced or eliminatedfunding for another Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system, the MediumExtended-Range Air Defense System (MEADS), a cooperative program with alliesthat the Administration wants to continue. The authorization conference agreementcuts funding from $44 million requested to $24 million and prohibits expenditure ofany funds unless the Defense Department finds room for MEADS in future budgetplans. The appropriations conference agreement provides just $10 million. TheSenate authorization and appropriations bills also reduced funding for the AirborneLaser (ABL) program and increased funding for Space-Based Laser (SBL) R&D. The Administration strongly objected, but the authorization conference agreementfollows the Senate. The appropriations conference agreement provides somewhatmore than the authorization for ABL. Both House and Senate appropriations billsalso reduced funding for new aircraft carrier development in the wake of the Navy'sdecision not to pursue a "clean sheet" design for a new "CVX" carrier. The Navywanted to keep some of the money to develop progressive changes in the currentdesign. The authorization conference agreement provides $110 million and theappropriations conference agreement provides $105 million of the $190 millionrequested. The Senate authorization and appropriations bills included advanceprocurement funds for a new LHD-8 amphibious ship -- the Defense Department didnot object, though some lawmakers denounced it as an example of pork barrelpolitics. The authorization conference agreement provides $50 million and theappropriations agreement $45 million. The House and Senate differed on the numberof new F/A-18E/F aircraft to procure, and the House added funds for twounrequested F-16 aircraft. The authorization and appropriations conferences funded30 F-18s, as requested, and one F-16. The Administration objected to a requirementin the Senate authorization bill that the F-22 aircraft complete certain testing beforeadditional procurement contracts are signed. The authorization conference includesthe restrictions but allows them to be waived. The Administration objected as wellto some cuts in other areas that the House, especially, imposed to finance increasesin certain programs, including Department of Energy weapons programs. Theauthorization conference agreement makes somewhat smaller cuts in these programs. Some long-term weapons issues appear to have been resolved this year -- the battleover B-2 bomber procurement now appears over and the House National SecurityCommittee did not renew its long fight to require a design competition in the NewAttack Submarine (NSSN) program. See Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5 below for actionon major weapons programs.

Military health care: The House and Senate authorization bills both took steps to ensure that military retirees continue to have access to the defensehealth care system. The Senate bill approved three pilot projects to test alternativeapproaches, and the House approved a floor amendment to establish a test of a planto allow military retirees to join the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan(FEHBP). The authorization conference includes pilot projects to test FEHBP, usingthe DOD TRICARE program as a supplement for Medicare, and giving retireesaccess to TRICARE pharmacy benefits.

Each of these issues, and background on other matters, is discussed below in more detail.

Defense Policy Issues

Budget constraints, the results of last year's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and its companion reports, ongoing battles over some social issues, and several othermatters, all combined to create a broad agenda in this year's defense debate. Keymatters of discussion included (1) military base closures; (2) Bosnia funding; (3)controls on technology exports to China and some other nations; (4) other efficiencymeasures; (5) military readiness; (6) long-term funding for defense modernization;(7) military personnel levels; (8) National Guard and Reserve funding and the roleof Army National Guard combat units; (9) major weapons programs, includingballistic missile defense, the B-2 bomber, fighter aircraft, and shipbuilding; (10) anumber of social issues, including sexual harassment and gender-integrated training,and (11) other matters, including military health care policy and Year 2000 computerproblems. The following sections briefly review each of these issues.

The effect of budget constraints on the defense debate. In considering the FY1999 defense budget, thecongressional defense committees were constrained by the 1997 budget agreement. Since the Administration request for FY1999 was right at the agreed level of defensespending of $270.5 billion in new budget authority, the defense debate in Congressinitially amounted to a "zero-sum game" -- any amounts that Congress added forprograms it favored, and any proposed Administration reductions that it rejected,would have to be offset by reductions in other defense programs. This represents asharp break with the experience of the past three years, in which Congress has addedsubstantial amounts to annual Administration defense budget requests (for details,see Table C2 in Appendix C). In the end, Congress provided an additional $8.3billion for defense programs as part of the omnibus appropriations bill, but this wasnot considered until the very end of the process.

The budget constraints could have led to a confrontation between Congress and the Administration over defense priorities, in which Congress would add money forprograms it felt the Administration had neglected and pay for the additions by cuttingsome high priority Administration programs. For their part, senior Administrationofficials said that they tried to avoid potential conflicts by meeting Congress half wayon programs of ongoing congressional interest (1) . Among other things, officials say,they fully funded national missile defense development; they requested more moneythan in the past for National Guard and Reserve equipment; they made an effort toidentify and fund all defense health program costs; and they moved funding for thenext Nimitz-class aircraft carrier forward one year, to FY2001, to avoid a gap inproduction.

For the most part, a contentious debate over priorities within the defense budget did not materialize in House and Senate action FY1999 defense authorization andappropriations bills. While the House and Senate provided some money forunrequested weapons programs and other priorities, the amounts are relatively small. The amounts later added for defense in the omnibus appropriations bill for the mostpart did not go to contentious weapons programs, except for $1 billion added forballistic missile defense.

The Quadrennial Defense Review. This year's congressional defense debate was also affected by the outcome of lastyear's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and two subsequent reports -- theDefense Reform Initiative report and the report of the National Defense Panel. TheQDR, released on May 19, 1997, was a thoroughgoing reassessment of U.S. defensepolicy by the Department of Defense. The Defense Reform Initiative report, issuedon November 10, 1997, identified a number of efficiency measures. The NationalDefense Panel report, released on December 1, 1997, reviewed the QDR and focusedon potential defense requirements in the 2010-2020 period. Each of these reportshighlighted themes that will be important ongoing matters of discussion in Congress.

Among other things, the QDR proposed a revised, very broad statement of U.S. defense strategy; reaffirmed the requirement that U.S. forces be able to prevail in twonearly simultaneous major theater wars; proposed measures to reduce pressures onthe force created by the relatively large number of smaller-scale contingencyoperations in the post-Cold War era; and identified key elements of the so-called"revolution in military affairs" (RMA). The QDR and the Defense Reform Initiativeemphasized the need for increased efficiency in order to save money for weaponsmodernization, and both strongly endorsed two more rounds of military baseclosures. The National Defense Panel report endorsed much of the QDR, includingits focus on shaping the international security environment and on efficiencymeasures. But the Panel also called for a greater emphasis on homeland defense andon preparations for potentially very different kinds of threats in the future. The Panelargued that less emphasis should be placed on preparing to fight two major theaterwars and more on preparing for the future, and it called for $5 to $10 billion more tobe spent each year on experimental force exercises and new technology.

Additional military base closures. Both the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Defense Reform Initiative reportrecommended two more rounds of military base closures as a critical means of savingmoney to finance future defense modernization programs. The Defense Departmentformally proposed two more closure rounds in its legislative plan last year -- oneround in 1999 and another in 2003. Congress was not receptive to the proposal,however, and DOD did not pursue the proposal as vigorously as it did this year. Thisyear, Secretary Cohen made congressional approval of two new base closure rounds,in 2001 and 2005, into one of his top priorities. On April 2, the Defense Departmentreleased a report on base closures that was required by the FY1998 DefenseAuthorization Act. (2) The report reaffirms earlierDOD estimates that previous baseclosure rounds, in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, will lead to annual savings of about$5.6 billion per year beginning in FY2000. On this basis, the Defense Departmentprojects that two future base closure rounds, each as large as the earlier average, willlead to annual savings of $2.8 billion (in today's prices) when fully phased in. Theseamounts, officials argue, are crucial to pay for weapons programs that are expectedto begin production at the end of the next decade.

Within Congress, resistance to more base closures has been hardened by objections to Administration action following the 1995 base closure round. The 1995Base Closure Commission recommended that two Air Force aircraft depotmaintenance facilities, in Sacramento, California, and San Antonio, Texas, be closed,which would have left more work for depots in Oklahoma, Georgia, and Utah. (3) TheWhite House, however, instead developed a plan to "privatize in place" at the twosites -- i.e., private contractors would be allowed to bid for contracts to performwork at the two facilities. This plan is now being implemented, and theAdministration argues that the results are positive, with competition for contractsleading to better prices.

To many Members of Congress, however, the Administration plan politicized the base closure process. Last year, the defense authorization bill was held up forseveral months by a bitter dispute over proposals to ensure that the remaining publicfacilities receive adequate work. This Spring, lawmakers complained about an AirForce memo discussing a White House request that the Defense Departmentencourage a private company to bid on a contract to perform work at the Sacramentofacility. In congressional hearings, Secretary Cohen and other officials were toldrepeatedly that privatization in place has eroded support for further base closures. In response, Secretary Cohen has said that Congress can include a prohibition onprivatization in place in any future base closure legislation. Cohen has also arguedthat Congress should approve more base closures now, so that the DefenseDepartment can prepare for them in the long-term FY2000-2005 defense plan thatit is now preparing. (For a review of base closure issues, see David Lockwood, Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round? , CRS Report 97-674 F.)

Congressional action : Neither the House nor the Senate agreed to additional military base closures in action on the FY1999 defense authorization. In acritical measure of support for base closures, SASC voted down a proposal bySenators McCain and Levin to approve one more base closure round in 2001. On June 25, the Senate approved by 48-45 an amendment by Senator Inhofe thatwould make it somewhat more difficult for DOD to realign facilities in theabsence of a congressionally established base closure process. Just a weekearlier, however, Senator Inhofe predicted that next year Congress will approveanother base closure round to occur in 2001. The Inhofe amendment wasultimately dropped by the authorization conference.

Bosnia funding and troop levels. On March 2, the Administration sent two separate requests to Congress for moneyto pay for military contingency operations overseas. The first was a request forsupplemental appropriations of about $1.8 billion in FY1998 to cover costs ofextending the U.S. mission in Bosnia through the end of the fiscal year and for costsof expanded operations in the Persian Gulf due to the confrontation with Iraq. Thesecond was an amendment to the FY1999 defense budget request asking for another$1.9 billion to cover costs of extending the mission in Bosnia through FY1999. Congress agreed to provide the FY1998 supplemental funding in H.R. 3579 (discussed above). The FY1999 request for Bosnia was initially considered inthe course of congressional action on the regular FY1999 funding bills, and fundingwas ultimately provided in the onmibust appropriations bill ( H.R. 4328 ).

The Administration requested that the additional FY1998 and FY1999 funding for Bosnia be designated as "emergency" appropriations under the terms of thebudget enforcement act. This would raise caps on defense discretionary spendingand on total discretionary spending by the amount provided, so the costs would nothave to be offset by cuts in other defense programs. This proposal was contentious. For the past three years, Congress had insisted that anticipated costs of ongoingmilitary operations in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere be provided as part ofregular defense appropriations measures within caps on defense spending establishedin the annual budget process -- the FY1998 and FY1999 supplemental funding hasbroken this precedent. The Administration argued that Bosnia costs were notassumed in defense plans at the time the 1997 budget agreement was reached. IfCongress did not agree to designate the Bosnia funding as emergency appropriationsand Bosnia operations continue, then the costs would have to be offset by cuts inother defense programs.

Congressional action: In its version of the defense authorization bill, SASC approved $1.9 billion for Bosnia in FY1999 as an addition to the regular $270.5billion funding for national defense and explicitly said that the funding shouldbe provided as emergency appropriations, as the Administration requested. Inits version of the authorization, HNSC did not specifically address emergencyfunding for Bosnia, but instead established a cap of $1.9 billion on the amountthat may be expended for Bosnia in FY1999, with an additional $100 millionavailable in case of emergency, to protect U.S. troops. On May 21, the fullHouse rejected a motion by Representative Barney Frank to recommit theauthorization bill to committee with instructions to report a revised bill thatwould cut off funds for operations in Bosnia after Dec. 31, 1998 without priorcongressional approval. The House-passed defense appropriations bill also didnot include emergency funding for Bosnia. On June 24, the Senate approved anamendment to the authorization bill by Senator Thurmond urging the Presidentto reduce the U.S. troop level in Bosnia, but, in a key test of policy, it rejectedan amendment by Senator Bob Smith to cut off funds unless Congress approvesthe deployment. Senators Byrd and Hutchison did not offer their amendmentto require that the U.S. troop presence in Bosnia be drawn down to the averagelevel maintained by major allies. On July 30, the Senate added an amendmentproposed by Senator Stevens to the defense appropriations bill to provide therequested $1.9 billion as emergency appropriations. On the broader issue ofcongressional war powers, the House-passed appropriations bill included aprovision proposed by Representative Skaggs to prohibit expenditures onoffensive military action without advance congressional approval. The Senate,however, voted by 84-15 to table an identical amendment to the appropriationsbill offered by Senator Durbin. The White House threatened a veto if theSkaggs provision were included in the appropriations bill. The authorizationconference agreement approves $1.9 billion in emergency funding for Bosnia-- but it must still be appropriated. The conference agreement also allowsexpenditure of more than that provided the President certifies that the fundingis needed for national security and will not reduce readiness. Theappropriations conference agreement does not include emergency funding forBosnia, leaving the issue for later consideration. The Skaggs amendment wasdropped in the appropriations conference agreement. Requested emergencyfunding of $1.9 billion for Bosnia was provided in the FY1999 Omnibusappropriations bill.

Relations with China and controls on technology exports to China and other nations. Policy toward China becamea major focus of congressional attention in the wake of allegations that the LoralSpace Corporation provided assistance to China in improving its missile launchtechnology and on the eave of the President's trip to China. Nuclear tests by Indiaand Pakistan also focused attention on trade sanctions legislation and other exportcontrols.

Congressional action: The House approved several amendments to the defense authorization bill to restrict technology exports to China and other countries. One amendment limited export of missile and satellite technology and provisionof technical assistance to China; another subjected satellite exports to the samelicensing requirements as munitions; another transferred responsibility forreviewing technology exports to China from the Commerce Department to theState Department; and another allowed Congress to review nuclear technologyexports through the same procedures as weapons exports. The White Housestrongly objected to these measures. The House-passed bill also included aprovision to prohibit the transfer of facilities at Long Beach naval shipyard, nearSan Diego, to a Chinese shipping company, COSCO. A number of amendmentsconcerning technology exports to China, relations with China, and tradesanctions were proposed in Senate action on the defense authorization bill. OnJune 23, the Senate rejected a motion to table four China-related amendmentsby Senator Hutchinson, and debate on China policy was then put off. SenatorHutchinson then said that he planned to offer his amendments when the Senatetook up the defense appropriations bill. Senator Stevens, however, delayedfloor action on the bill, reportedly in part because he was concerned thatcontentious amendments on China or other issues could derail the bill. Ultimately the Senate considered a number of China-related issues in action onother bills, and Senator Hutchinson offered a single, revised amendment on thedefense appropriations bill. This measure required the State Department to denyvisas to foreign officials involved in forced abortions, forced sterilization, orgenital mutilation, and it passed unanimously. The authorization conferenceagreement drops House language banning the export of satellites to China butincludes provisions that would (1) take review of technology exports to Chinaaway from the Commerce Department and return it to the State Department, (2)require advanced congressional notification of satellite sales to China alongwith a presidential justification for waiving human rights-related limits onsatellite transfers, and (3) prohibit export of missile equipment or technology toChina unless the President certifies that the export will not hurt the U.S. spacelaunch industry and will not improve China's missile launch capabilities.. Theconference agreement also includes the House-passed ban on transferring portfacilities COSCO. For a review of China policy issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB98018, China-U.S. Relations , by [author name scrubbed].

Other efficiency measures. Along with additional base closures, both the QDR and the Defense Reform Initiative reportrecommended a number of other efficiency measures. The most important measuresinclude (1) a one-third reduction over the next few years in the staff of the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense (OSD) and substantial cuts in military service headquartersstaffs; (2) cuts in civilian and military personnel carrying out support functions; and(3) aggressive pursuit of public-private competitions for additional activities nowcarried out by civilian DOD employees. In the past, Congress has, on the one had,pressured the Defense Department to reduce the number of people engaged in"overhead" activities and, on the other hand, imposed some barriers to reductions incivilian personnel levels. Issues this year included, first, whether the DOD cuts inOSD and headquarters personnel amount to real or only paper reductions; second,whether Congress will require different or deeper cuts in overhead personnel; and,third, how Congress will react to privatization measures at local facilities. Over thepast couple of years, the House, in particular, has sought to impose deep cuts in thenumber of personnel engaged in "acquisition" activities. The Senate and theAdministration sought to soften House-proposed measures, in part on the groundsthat acquisition personnel have been defined too broadly. At the same time, theHouse has resisted proposals to open weapons maintenance and other activities toprivate competition.

Congressional action: In report language, HNSC urged the Defense Department not to waive cuts in acquisition personnel that were mandated in last year'sdefense authorization act and criticized DOD for not complying with a reporting requirement on management headquarters personnel. HNSC also imposed anacross-the-board cut of $500 million in funding for consultants and cited thisreduction as a reform measure. The White House objected to the cut inconsulting funds and to several measures in the House-passed authorization bill,saying they would restrict DOD's ability to pursue efficiencies. Theauthorization conference agreement includes (1) a measure to withhold 10percent of funds for the Office of the Secretary of Defense unless DOD meetsall statutory requirements to cut headquarters staffs and provides mandatedreports to Congress, (2) cuts 25,000 acquisition personnel, (3) cuts $240 millionfor consultants, and (4) reduces the number of Assistant Secretary of Defensepositions from 10 to 9.

Military readiness. Military readiness has been a focus of intense attention in congressional hearings throughoutthe year. Many Members of Congress have cited repeated reports aboutreadiness-related problems ranging from a shortage of Air Force fighter aircraft spareengines; to a drop in Army standards for new recruits; to shortfalls in Army personnelin key skill areas, including combat infantry; to a drastic decline in pilot retentionrates in the Air Force and the Navy. These are symptoms, some conclude, of animminent readiness crisis, brought about, first, by inadequate funding for defense,and, second, by the Clinton Administration's willingness to commit U.S. forces tomore missions abroad than the force can reasonably support.

In response, Administration officials acknowledged some problems, but they insisted that there is no overall crisis in readiness now or in the foreseeable future. Early deploying units, they say, remain fully ready, though some later deploying unitsmay take longer than in the past to prepare. Evidence of problems, they say, islargely based on anecdotes that do not accurately portray the state of the force. Overall readiness reports, they insist, continue to show a highly qualified and capableforce. Problems that have occurred are being fixed -- some Air Force engine spares,for example, were in short supply because of mistakes in projecting failure rates, butthe planning models have now been changed. Pilot retention has been a problem, inpart because of airline hiring, and in part because of demands of operations abroad,but a sustained effort to resolve the problem is underway -- Congress approvedhigher pilot reenlistment bonuses last year, and several steps are being taken to limitdeployments. Army recruiting continues to meet longstanding quality goals. Mostrecently, however, officials in the services have expressed growing concerns aboutpersonnel recruitment and retention. On September 15, the President met with seniormilitary officers, who reportedly identified increasingly serious readiness problemsand urged support for higher defense spending. On September 28, the Joint Chiefstestified before the Senate Armed Services Committee about the state of militaryreadiness and identified a need for more that $17 billion per year in additionaldefense spending. Later, in response to questions of Senator McCain, the Chiefsidentified shortfalls of as much as $135 billion over five years.

Congressional action: HNSC restructured operation and maintenance funding to provide more money for depot maintenance and real property maintenance. It also mandated substantial changes in readiness reporting, which DODcomplains will be difficult and costly to implement. SASC also providedlimited additional amounts for readiness-related accounts. In floor action on thedefense appropriations bill, the Senate approved an amendment by SenatorsDomenici and Harkin to require reports on food stamp use by military familiesand other factors related to family life, morale, and retention. The Senate alsoadopted a Hutchison amendment stating the sense of the Congress that readinesshas been eroded by a combination of declining budgets and expanded missions,including the mission in Bosnia. The authorization conference agreementrequires improved readiness reporting, provides more money for recruiting andvarious troop benefits, increases added pay for flight duty, and emphasizesquality of life measures, such as day care centers and housing, in constructionprograms. The FY1999 omnibus appropriations bill includes $1.3 billion forenhanced military readiness. The bill did not, however, make changes thatsome had sought in military retirement benefits as a way of bolstering personnelretention.

Long-term funding for defense modernization. The flip side of the military readiness issueconcerns the adequacy of long-term weapons modernization programs. In recentyears, the Administration has given a very high priority to readiness-related funding. As a result, from year to year, funding that the Defense Department had planned tospend on weapons procurement has, instead, had to be reallocated to operation andmaintenance accounts which are most closely related to readiness. In the FY1999budget, this problem has not been completely resolved. The requested level ofprocurement funding, $48.7 billion, is very close to the level that was planned lastyear -- there was some decline, officials acknowledge, but only, they say, becauseof adjustments in weapons programs following the Quadrennial Defense Review. But this is true only because the Administration requested funding for FY1999Bosnia costs as emergency appropriations, not subject to the cap on overall defensespending. If the budget had to absorb Bosnia costs, then procurement spendingwould likely decline.

More generally, the Administration has set a goal of building up procurement funding to $60 billion per year by FY2001. To meet this goal without an increase inoverall defense spending, however, flies in the face of historical experience in thedefense budget, as senior defense officials candidly acknowledge. TheAdministration hopes to meet the target by applying base closure and other efficiencysavings to the procurement accounts. A failure to achieve planned savings, however,would put off reaching the target, as would continued growth in weaponsmaintenance costs, unplanned quality of life requirements, costs of contingencyoperations not funded through emergency appropriations, health care cost growth, orany of a number of other expenses. Recently Under Secretary of Defense JacquesGansler said that the $60 billion procurement target was becoming harder to reach.

Congressional action: No versions of the defense authorization and appropriations bills include substantial increases in modernization funding. Theomnibus appropriations bill provides $1 billion for BMD programs, but no otherfunds for weapons modernization.

Military personnel end-strength levels. The QDR mandated a cut of 37,000 active duty personneland of 55,000 reserve positions through about the year 2003. The active dutyreductions, taken mainly out of support activities, are part of the QDR's efficiencysavings. There has, however, been some vocal resistance in Congress to proposedpersonnel cuts. While few object to reductions in support activities, many argue thatactive duty forces are already being strained by the requirements of contingencyoperations and forward presence abroad, so that further force cuts are ill-advised. The Army, in particular, has long had shortages of personnel in certain skills, asituation it has been willing to live with on the assumption that units would be filledout with individual reservists in the event of a major conflict. But in handlingsmaller-scale operations, this aggravates burdens on the force because units sent toBosnia or elsewhere are fully manned, in part, by drawing personnel from otheractive duty units, increasing shortages elsewhere. (4) For the past two years, Congresshas set floors on active duty personnel levels. In order to carry out the QDRreductions, Congress must agree to reduce or eliminate the statutory floors. SomeMembers of Congress do not want to do so.

Congressional action: The Administration requested that active duty end-strength be reduced by more than 35,000 from the authorized FY1998 leveland by about 24,000 from the actual FY1998 level, and that Congress repeal statutory floors on end-strength. HNSC rejected the administration request torepeal the statutory floors and agreed to reduce authorized end-strength by11,000 fewer positions than the Administration wanted, arguing that troops arebeing overworked. SASC approved the requested end-strength reductions andrepeal of the statutory floors. House and Senate versions of the defenseappropriations bill assumed the requested cuts in end-strength in FY1999. Theauthorization conference report agrees to the Administration request.

National Guard and reserve issues. In the wake of the QDR, a simmering dispute between the active Army and the ArmyNational Guard (ARNG) over the role of ARNG combat units broke into openwarfare. The Guard believes that active Army leaders have not given Guard combatunits, especially eight ARNG combat divisions, an appropriate role in war plans, andthat the QDR did not adequately consider the views of ARNG leaders. In the midstof this dispute, last year Congress approved a measure requiring the appointment ofone Guard and one Reserve officer as special advisors to the Chairman of the JointChiefs. This year, the Defense Department has requested substantially more moneythan in the past for Guard and reserve weapons procurement. Meanwhile, the ArmyChief of Staff has been meeting with ARNG leaders in an attempt to ease the ongoingdispute. Congress has perennially added money for Guard and reserve weaponsprograms to the budget and has tried to protect Guard units. (For a thoroughdiscussion, see [author name scrubbed], The Army Reserve Components: Strength andForce Structure Issues , CRS Report 97-719, July 15, 1997.)

Congressional action: As it has in the past, Congress added substantial amounts for equipment earmarked for National Guard and Reserve forces.

Major weapons programs. Disputes over major weapons programs almost always arise in Congress. This year,issues include:

Missile defense: Missile defense programs fall into two categories: National Missile Defense (NMD) is designed to protect the United Statesitself against long-range missile attack. Theater Missile Defense (TMD) programsare designed to protect forward deployed U.S. forces and allies from short- orintermediate-range missile attack. Following the QDR, the Administration increasedfunding for NMD programs, and the level of funding has become less contentiousthan in the past. (See Table A3 for the funding request.) Major policy disputesremain unresolved, however. The Administration is pursuing a plan to develop NMDtechnology while deferring a decision to deploy a system. It also hopes that anysystem eventually deployed will allow the 1972 ABM Treaty, perhaps with someamendments, to survive. Missile defense advocates in Congress, however, believethat threats to the United States warrant early deployment of a nationwide defense,and many believe the ABM Treaty is anachronistic. Disputes over TMD systems,meanwhile, continue. Key issues this year involve the Theater High Altitude AreaDefense (THAAD) system, the Navy Theater-Wide program, and the MediumExtended Range Air Defense System (MEADS). THAAD and Navy Theater-Wideare relatively long-range interceptor systems. The Administration has delayedTHAAD development because of test failures, and, for affordability reasons, wantsto delay procurement of the Navy system until after THAAD procurement isunderway. MEADS is a cooperative program with European allies to provide animproved air/missile defense system for forward deployedtroops.

Congressional Action: In the past, provisions to require deployment of a nationwide defense have sometimes held up completion of defenseauthorization and appropriations bills. As a result, for the past two years,Congress has considered, though it has not passed, separate legislationestablishing missile defense policy. This year, the Senate Armed ServicesCommittee again took this approach -- on April 24, it reported S. 1873 ( S.Rept. 105-175 ), "The American Missile ProtectionAct of 1998," calling for deployment of a nationwide defense as soon astechnically feasible. On May 13 and again on September 9, however, theSenate failed to invoke cloture on the bill. Congress has also acted onTMD programs earlier in the year. On March 30, the House approved H.R. 2786 , "The Theater Missile Defense Improvement Actof 1998," that authorizes $147 million in additional funding in FY1998 forselected TMD programs; and the FY1998 supplemental funding bill, H.R. 3579 , includes $179 million for TMD programs.

The House-passed version of the FY1999 authorization included some additional money for the Navy Area Defense program and some otherTMD systems. The SASC version of the bill provided added funding forthe Navy Theater Wide program, but reduced THAAD slightly. On May12, however, the THAAD program suffered its fifth successive test failure,and on May 14, the Senate approved an amendment by Senators Thurmondand Levin to trim another $253.9 million from the program becauseengineering development will be delayed. The Senate committee versionof the defense appropriations bill reflected this measure and alsorestructured the THAAD demonstration/validation program. On May 21,the full House approved a committee amendment to restructure theTHAAD program -- it required DOD to select an second contractor tocompete with Lockheed-Martin on the program and it shifts $142.7 millionfrom engineering development to technology development. SASC also cutMEADS funding from $43 to $10 million and required DOD to studyalternatives -- the Senate appropriations bill follows suit. Neither HNSC,SASC, nor SAC added money for NMD. In action on a related program,SASC was critical of the Air Force Advanced Airborne Laser (ABL)program and cut funding by $97 million. SASC also increased funding forSpace-Based Laser R&D by $94 million (in PE# 63731C, BMD SupportTechnology). The Senate appropriations bill cut $57 million from theABL. SAC also added $10 million to the TMD budget for boost phaseintercept technology. In part as an alternative to THAAD, thecongressional defense committees have all endorsed accelerateddevelopment of the Navy Theater Wide TMD system -- budget additionsrange from $70 million in the House authorization bill to $150 million inthe House defense appropriations bill. The authorization conference cutTHAAD by $294 million and reduced MEADS by $19 million to $24million. It also prohibits further MEADS expenditures until MEADSfunding is included in long-term defense budget plans. Finally, theagreement follows the Senate increases in the Space Based Laser programand cuts the Airborne Laser by $57 million. The appropriations conferenceagreement cuts THAAD by $376 million, reduces MEADS to $10 million,and cuts the Airborne Laser by $25 million. Finally, the FY1999 omnibusappropriations bill includes additional funding of $1 billion for missiledefense, with no specific allocation of the funds indicated.

The B-2 bomber: In recent years, some Members of Congress have proposed procurement of 9 more B-2 bombers in addition to the 21 alreadyfinanced. With the House generally supporting more bombers and the Senateopposed, the annual compromise has been to provide enough money to keepproduction lines available and to study the issue some more. In March, anindependent commission mandated by Congress issued the latest B-2 study -- itcalled for no more bombers to be produced, largely because of cost.

Congressional action: None of this year's defense bills add money to procure more B-2 bombers, which may mark the end of the B-2 battle. HNSC added a limited amount for B-2 upgrades, while SAC cut somefrom the request.

New fighter aircraft: Three new fighter aircraft programs are in various stages of development and production -- the Navy F/A-18E/F multirolefighter, the Air Force F-22 air superiority fighter, and the multi-service Joint StrikeFighter (JSF) development program. DOD has requested FY1999 funding to buy 30F/A-18E/F aircraft, to continue to develop the F-22 and to procure the first twoaircraft, and to carry on JSF R&D. The QDR studied the three programs and decidedto continued all of them, though all were reduced. Some Members of Congressremain of the view that DOD cannot afford to buy all three, and that one should becanceled. There have also been differences between the two houses on each of theprograms. The cost of the F-22 has been a major concern in the Senate,especially.

Congressional action: HNSC and HAC reduced F/A-18E/F procurement from the 30 aircraft requested to 27, but otherwise made no changes inmajor tactical aircraft programs. SASC included a requirement that theF-22 complete 10% of planned flight tests before funding for the nextround of procurement is released -- this provision reflects concern aboutconcurrent testing and production. But the Senate rejected a Bumpersamendment to the authorization bill to require 601 hours of flight testingbefore the next round of procurement. The Administration objected to theSenate requirement. The authorization conference included funds for 30F-18s, as requested, and allows a flight test requirement for the F-22 to bewaived. The appropriations conference also approved 30 F-18s.

Shipbuilding: In recent years, Congress has added substantial amounts to shipbuilding programs, generally by moving up planned ship purchasesto avoid costly gaps in production. Congress has also ensured that major shipyardshave enough work to cover overhead and development costs and to maintain trainedemployment levels. One major issue, carried over from last year, concernsprocurement of the CVN-77, the last of the planned Nimitz-class aircraft carriers theNavy had, until recently, planned to buy. DOD has now moved up plannedprocurement of CVN-77 to the FY2001 budget -- full funding had been planned inFY2002. This is an alternative to a plan that the carrier shipbuilder, Newport NewsShipbuilding (NNS), had proposed last year to provide accelerated advancedprocurement funding. NNS had argued that its approach, called "Smart Buy," wouldavoid a gap in production and would, therefore, save the Navy as much as $600million on the price of the ship. The new DOD plan will not save as much, but it alsoavoids a big bill in FY1999 and FY2000. Another longer-term issue concernsdevelopment of the next generation DD-21 destroyer. Last year, Ingalls ShipbuildingCompany of Mississippi and Bath Iron Works of Maine agreed to team together indeveloping and building the ship. The Navy initially agreed to the teaming arrangement but then became concerned that no competing team appeared to seek thecontract. Most recently, the Navy has reached agreement with the ship builders andwith combat system integrators for Lockheed-Martin and Bath to form one team andRaytheon and Ingalls a second to pursue competition in combat systems and design,though both shipyards are guaranteed eventual production work. Also, the Navy hasabandoned plans to develop an entirely new-design aircraft carrier, known as the"CVX." (5) Instead, the Navy will pursue incrementalimprovements in the next threeNimitz-class carriers, eventually leading to a new design.

Congressional action: HNSC, and subsequently the full House, approved the Administration's shipbuilding program largely intact, including theAdministration request for funding for one New Attack Submarine(NSSN). This marks the end of an ongoing debate, in which HNSC hastried to mandate a competition between Newport News Shipbuilding andGeneral Dynamics Electric Boat Division to design different versions ofthe submarine. SASC and SAC also largely supported the shipbuildingrequest, but added $50 million in advance procurement to buy a newLHD-7 class amphibious ship rather than overhaul older ships for themission. This addition has received some attention because the ships arebuilt by Ingalls Shipbuilding Company in Senate Majority Leader TrentLott's home state of Mississippi. The authorization conference agreementprovides $50 million in LHD-7 advance funds and the appropriationsconference provides $45 million.

A new issue arose following reports that the Navy has decided not to pursue development of a "clean-sheet" design for the CVX. The key issueis how money for carrier R&D will be allocated. For its part, the Navywants to protect funding for CVN upgrades. The Senate AppropriationsCommittee, however, recommended a $130 million reduction in fundingfor CVX R&D and a $50 million increase for CVN-77 under programelement (PE) 0603512N. The committee also cut $35.7 million for CVXfeasibility studies from PE 0603564N and recommended a $5-millionincrease to PE 0603564N "to establish a red team [i.e., an independentstudy team] to study a futuristic aircraft carrier concept." The HouseAppropriations bill cut funding for the CVX by $100 million. Theauthorization conference agreement provides $110 million for CVX R&Dand appropriations conference agreement provides $105 million.

Other weapons issues: The Administration did not request funding in the FY1999 budget to purchase additional F-16 aircraft. Congress has, inthe past, supported a continuing low level of procurement as a means of keepingproduction lines going, encouraging foreign sales, and meeting Air Forcerequirements for attrition aircraft. Funding for the Joint Target Attack Radar System(JSTARS) aircraft was also be an issue. The QDR recommended reducing the totalplanned procurement of JSTARS aircraft from 19 to 13 on the assumption thatNATO would agree to purchase 6 aircraft with alliance common funds. NATO didnot decide to purchase JSTARS, however, so there was interest in Congress inrestoring the earlier plan.

Congressional action: The House authorization added $66 million to procure 2 F-16s and also added advance procurement funds for 2additional JSTARS aircraft. The House also added substantial amounts forNational Guard and Reserve equipment, including $300 million in adefense-wide account and additional amounts for specific weaponsprograms. The House also provided funds for 8 C-130 cargo aircraft ofvarious types -- DOD had requested just one. The House appropriationsbill provided $60 million for two F-16s, advance procurement money forJSTARS, $120 million for Guard and Reserve equipment, and $461million for 8 C-130s. SASC provided $72 million either for advanceprocurement or for termination costs for JSTARS, pending a DOD reporton its plans for the program and alternatives. SASC also funded 4additional C-130s and added $60 million for Guard and Reserveprocurement. SAC funded 3 additional C-130s and provided $247 millionfor "miscellaneous" Guard and Reserve procurement. (6) C-130J fundingwas a particularly contentious issue -- Rep. Obey offered an amendmentin the HAC markup to eliminate funds for 4 of the 8 aircraft in thesubcommittee bill and to use the savings instead to restore F/A-18E/Fprocurement to the requested level and upgrade 4 existing C-130s. Hecomplained that increases in the C-130J program were approved becausethe aircraft is built in Georgia near the Speaker's district and that they comeat the expense of more valuable programs, such as the F/A-18E/F. Theauthorization conference agreement provides funds for 7 C-130s, 1 F-16,advance procurement funds for JSTARS, and $60 million formiscellaneous Guard and Reserve equipment in addition to funding inregular line items for equipment that will be supplied to the Guard andReserve. The appropriations conference agreement follows suit on C-130s, provides $36 million, not $72 million, for JSTARS advance procurement,and provides $140 million in a separate Guard and Reserve procurementaccount.

National Defense Panel recommendations: The National Defense Panel was critical of planned procurement of weapons that, it said, will notbe able to cope with future threats. In the Panel's view, the Defense Departmentshould reduce or terminate "legacy" programs and instead pursue leap-aheadtechnologies, including much lighter, more easily deployable equipment for landforces, longer-range fighter aircraft, and ships with lower radar visibility. The Panelspecifically criticized the Army M1A2 tank upgrade, Crusader artillery, andComanche helicopter programs; the Navy and Air Force F/A-18E/F and F-22programs; and the Navy CVN-77 aircraft carrier. Some Members of Congress haveechoed questions the Panel raised about legacy systems, but few have yet proposedspecific program changes.

Congressional action: SASC approved a measure to require a Quadrennial Defense Review at the beginning of each new administration, to bepreceded by recommendations on strategy from a National Defense Panel. SASC also criticized the Army's Crusader artillery program and ordereda review of the program in light of the National Defense Panel's argument. The authorization conference agreement requires a report on Crusader.

Sexual harassment, gender-integrated training, and other social issues. Social issues are frequently matters of debateon annual defense funding bills. This year, the main focus of discussion has been onthe outcome of sexual harassment cases in the Army, and on the related issue ofgender-integrated training in the services. Last year, the Administration appointeda commission to review gender-integrated training, while Congress established aseparate commission. The Administration-appointed commission, headed by formerSenator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, made thirty recommendations aimed at improvingrecruitment and training. The recommendations that received the most attention wereto provide separate units and separate barracks for men and women during basictraining, a policy the Marine Corps, but not the other services, has followed. (7) Incontrast, a long-standing defense advisory group on women in the military -- calledthe Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) -- alsostudied the issue and disagreed with the Kassebaum Baker committee'srecommendation for greater gender separation in training. Secretary of DefenseCohen subsequently decided to leave it to each of the services to determine whetherto make changes, and none of the services has altered its policy. Thecongressionally-mandated commission has not yet completed its investigations.

Congressional action: The HNSC version of authorization bill included a provision requiring the services to phase in separate units and separate barracksfor men and women in basic training -- the rule in the House did not make inorder any floor amendments to reverse the HNSC requirements, so there was nofloor action on the issue. In stark contrast, SASC prohibited any steps to changecurrent service practices until the congressionally-mandated commissionreports. Senator Brownback proposed an amendment to the authorization billto insert the House language, but on June 24, the Senate approved a Snowesubstitute that would allow the services to follow current practices. So theHouse and the Senate were directly at odds on gender-integrated training. HNSC also included a provision requiring that the Secretary of Defense and thePresident display "exemplary conduct," as is required of uniformed commandersunder current law. (8) The authorization conferenceagreement allows current unittraining practices to continue but requires separation of sleeping quarters formen and women in basic training. It also includes a "sense of the House"statement urging separate training and another "sense of the House" statementto the effect that senior officials should be held to exemplary standards.

Defense health care. A number of defense health care issues have been under continued discussion in recent years,including the effectiveness of the DOD program to provide health care for defensedependents through a managed care system called Tricare and health care benefits formilitary retirees. Congress is continuing to evaluate Tricare, and last year establisheda demonstration program to test a system, known as Medicare subvention, in whichMedicare will pay the Defense Department for care provided to military retirees whoare eligible for Medicare benefits.

Congressional action: HNSC and SASC both took steps to ensure that military retirees will continue to have access to health care at defense facilities. Bothestablished demonstration projects to test alternative means of providing healthcare to retirees. The House also approved an amendment to test allowingmilitary retirees access to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP). The authorization conference agreement includes three major demonstrationsof means to provide continued health care to retirees, including (1) a test ofallowing retirees to enroll in FEHBP, (2) provision of Tricare benefits as asupplement to Medicare, and (3) providing retirees with Tricare pharmacybenefits.

Medical research and development earmarks. For several years, defense appropriations bills haveearmarked funds for various medical programs, including bone marrow transplants,breast cancer and prostate cancer research, and other disease research. None of thesefunds have been requested.

Congressional action: The Senate version of the defense appropriations bill set aside $250 million for medical R&D earmarks, saying that the DefenseDepartment should determine priorities among various programs. This wouldrestrict the amount available for such programs. The full committee specifiedthat funding should not be reduced below the FY1998 level for breast cancerand prostate cancer research. The House bill, in contrast, included separateamounts for a number of medical earmarks. The appropriations conferenceagreement provides separate earmarked funds for a number of medicalprograms, including breast cancer and prostate cancer research, and follows theSenate approach on a number of other programs.

Year 2000 computer problems. Like other agencies and corporations, the Defense Department faces a potentiallyserious problem with its computers in adjusting to the turn of the century.

Congressional action: The House Appropriations Committee added $1.6 billion in emergency appropriations, not counted against caps on defense and totaldiscretionary spending, to help the Defense Department fix its computers. Onthe same day, the committee also approved emergency funding for the samepurpose for the Treasury Department. In the full Committee markup, Rep. Obeycriticized this emergency funding as, in effect, an increase in the defense budget,but a Neumann amendment to remove the money was rejected. On June 19,however, the House Republican caucus decided not to provide money to fix the"Y2K" problem as emergency appropriations, and the rule on the defenseappropriations bill, approved on June 24, subsequently removed the $1.6 billionin emergency funding. The issue of emergency funding for Bosnia and Y2K,and of offsetting rescissions, was then left to be addressed in a separatesupplemental appropriations bill, and not in the defense appropriations measure. The FY1999 omnibus appropriations bill provides $1.1 billion for the DefenseDepartment for Y2K conversion, and an additional $2.4 billion for otheragencies.

Tritium production. The defense authorization bill approves funding for Department of Energy weapons relatedactivities as well as for Department of Defense activities. The defense appropriationsbill does not provide funds for DOE, however -- instead, all DOE funding isprovided in the energy and water development appropriations bill. A key issue in thedefense authorization bill this year concerns tritium production for Department ofEnergy nuclear weapons programs.

Congressional action: The House-passed authorization bill included a measure that would prohibit the Defense of Energy (DOE) from buying tritium fornuclear weapons from commercial nuclear reactor. Without this source oftritium, DOE will have to build new facilities to produce tritium in SouthCarolina. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost about$3 billion over the next forty years to buy tritium from commercial sources and$10 billion to buy it from new facilities. The Senate-passed authorization billincluded a provision specifically allowing DOE to choose whichever long-termoption it prefers. This was a major issue in the authorization conference. Theconference agreement allows DOE to make the choice, but prohibitsimplementing the plan for a year, allowing Congress to review the decision nextyear. Senator Kyl has reportedly put a hold on the authorization conferencereport because he objects to this provision, feeling that it is urgent for DOE topursue a new tritium source. (For a full discussion see CRS Issue Brief IB97002, The Department of Energy's Tritium Production Program , by RichardE. Rowberg and Clifford Lau.)

Legislation

S.Con.Res. 86 (Domenici)

A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the UnitedStates Government for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and revisingthe concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998. Reported by the SenateBudget Committee ( S.Rept. 105-170 ), Mar. 20, 1998. Approved by the Senate(57-41), Apr. 2, 1998.

H.Con.Res. 284 (Kasich)

A concurrent resolution revising the congressional budget for the United StatesGovernment for fiscal year 1998, establishing the congressional budget for the UnitedStates Government for fiscal year 1999, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levelsfor fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Reported by the House BudgetCommittee ( H.Rept. 105-555 ), May 27, 1998. Approved by the House (216-204),June 5, 1998.

S. 1768 (Stevens)

An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for recoveryfrom natural disasters, and for overseas peacekeeping efforts, for the fiscal yearending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. Reported by the Committee onAppropriations ( S.Rept. 105-168 ), Mar. 17, 1998. Agreed to by voice vote andreturned to the calendar, Mar. 26, 1998. Senate took up H.R. 3579 aspassed by the House, inserted the provisions of S. 1768 , and passed H.R. 3579 , as amended, by unanimous consent, Mar. 31, 1998.

H.R. 3579 (Livingston)

A bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year endingSeptember 30, 1998, and for other purposes. Reported by the AppropriationsCommittee ( H.Rept. 105-469 ), Mar. 27, 1998. Passed by the House, withamendments (212-208), Mar. 31, 1998. Received in the Senate, Senate inserted theprovisions of S. 1768 , and passed by unanimous consent, Mar. 31, 1998. Senate insisted on its amendments and requested a conference, Mar. 31, 1998. Conference report filed ( H.Rept. 105-504 ), April 30, 1998. House agreed toconference report (242-163) and Senate agreed to conference report (88-11), April30, 1998. Signed into law ( P.L. 105-74 ) May 1, 1998.

H.R. 3616 (Spence)

A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities ofthe Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year1999, and for other purposes. Introduced and referred to the Committee on NationalSecurity, Apr. 1, 1998. Full committee markup completed and ordered to be reported( H.Rept. 105-532 ), May 6, 1998. Considered in the House, May 19, 20, 21, 1998. Passed by the House, with amendments (357-60), May 21, 1998. Senate took up H.R. 3616 , struck all after the enacting clause, inserted the text of S. 2057 , approved the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent, andrequested a conference, June 25, 1998. Conference agreement announced, September17, 1998 and reported ( H.Rept. 105-736 ), September 22, 1998. Conference reportapproved in the House (373-50), September 24, 1998. Conference report consideredby the Senate, September 30-October 1, 1998 and passed by the Senate (96-2),October 1, 1998. Signed into law by the President ( P.L. 105-261 ), October 17, 1998.

S. 2057 (Thurmond)

A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities ofthe Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year1999, and for other purposes. Full committee markup completed, and ordered to bereported as an original bill without written report, May 7, 1998. A companion bill, S. 2060 , ordered to be reported ( S.Rept. 105-189 ), May 7, 1998. Considered in the Senate, May 13, 14, and 15, and June 19, 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1998. Approved by the Senate (88-4), June 25, 1998. Senate inserted the text into H.R. 3616 and passed H.R. 3616 , June 25, 1998.

S. 2132 (Stevens)

An original bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscalyear ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. Subcommittee markup held, June 2, 1998. Full Appropriations Committee markup held and ordered to bereported ( S.Rept. 105-200 ), June 4, 1998. Considered by the Senate and amendedtext inserted into H.R. 4103 , and H.R. 4103 then passed inlieu of S. 2132 (97-2), July 30, 1998.

H.R. 4103 (Livingston)

A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal yearending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. Subcommittee markup held,June 3-4, 1998. Full Appropriations Committee markup held and ordered to bereported ( H.Rept. 105-591 ), June 17, 1998. Considered by the House and approved,with amendments (358-61), June 24, 1998. Taken up by the Senate, which struck allafter the enacting clause and inserted the text of S. 2132 , and passed bythe Senate (97-2), July 30, 1998. Conference agreement announced, September 23,1998 and reported ( H.Rept. 105-746 ) September 25, 1998. House approved theconference agreement (369-43), September 28, 1998. Senate approved theconference agreement (94-2), September 29, 1998. Signed into law by the President( P.L. 105-262 ), October 17, 1998

H.R. 4328

A bill making omnibus, consolidated appropriations and emergency appropriationsfor FY1999 and for other purposes. Conference agreement reported ( H.Rept.105-825 ), October 19, 1998. House approved the conference agreement (333-95),October 20, 1998. Senate approved the conference agreement (65-29), October 21,1998. Signed into law by the President ( P.L. 105-277 ), October 21, 1998.

Appendix A: Summary Tables

A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1995 toFY1999 (budget authority in billions of current year dollars) a

Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999 , Feb. 1998, and prior years.

Notes

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

A2: Administration Defense Plan, February 1998 (budget authority, current year dollars in billions)

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, FY1999 , February 1998; Congressional Budget Office.

A3: Ballistic Missile Defense Funding, FY1999 (millions of dollars)

Sources: Department of Defense, "RDT&E Programs (R-1): Department of Defense Budget forFY1999," Feb. 1998; Department of Defense, "Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System:Department of Defense Budget for FY1999," Feb. 1998; S.Rept. 105-189 ; H.Rept. 105-532 .. Congressional Record , May 14, 1998, p. S4853. Congressional Record , May 21, 1998,p. H3673. S.Rept. 105-200 . H.Rept. 105-736 . H.Rept. 105-746 .

A4: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs: FY1999Authorization (amounts in millions of dollars)

* Notes : All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. Sealift ship procurement wasrequested in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, but HNSC, SASC, and SAC provided it underRevolving Funds in the National Defense Sealift Fund. For Ballistic Missile Defense, the militaryconstruction request is $17.2 million, which is often reported as part of the total elsewhere. Guard andReserve Equipment refers only to amounts provided in a separate account -- the amounts do not includeitems procured for Guard and Reserve forces in regular line items.

A5: Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs:FY1999Appropriations (amounts in millions of dollars)

* Notes : All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. Sealift ship procurement wasrequested in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, but HNSC, SASC, and SAC provided it underRevolving Funds in the National Defense Sealift Fund. For Ballistic Missile Defense, the militaryconstruction request is $17.2 million, which is often reported as part of the total elsewhere. Guard andReserve Equipment refers only to amounts provided in a separate account -- the amounts do not includeitems procured for Guard and Reserve forces in regular line items and do not include C-130 aircraft. Does not include emergency funding provided in the omnibus appropriations bill ( H.R. 4328 ). For emergency amounts, see Table 6, below.

A6: Defense-Related Supplemental Appropriations in FY1999Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 4328) (millions ofdollars)

A7: Congressional Action on FY1999 Defense Authorization Bill by Title (budget authority in billions of dollars)

* Notes: The request reflects CBO scoring and is shown as reported in the House. Senate amountshave been adjusted to be consistent with the structure of the request as reported in the House. Totalsmay not add due to rounding.

Sources: H.Rept. 105-532 ; S.Rept. 105-189 . H.Rept. 105-736 .

A8: Congressional Action on FY1999 Defense AppropriationsBill by Title (budget authority in billions of dollars)

* Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. These data are not comparable with authorizationfigures in Table A6, because the structure of accounts differs -- the largest difference is that theauthorization bills include Defense Health funding in Operation and Maintenance, while theappropriations bills provide Defense Health funding in Other DOD Programs.

Sources: H.Rept. 105-591 ; S.Rept. 105-200 ; H.Rept. 105-746 .

A9: Final Congressional Action on National Defense (050)Authorization and Appropriations by Appropriations Bill and Title* (budgetauthority in billions of dollars)

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

*Notes: Titles are organized according to the request and authorization structure. Request reflectsCongressional Budget Office scoring. Totals may not add due to rounding.

Appendix B: Relationships Between the National Defense Budget Function and Defense-Related Appropriations Bills

The annual defense appropriations bill provides funds for military activities ofthe Department of Defense (DOD) and for other purposes. Five other appropriationsbills 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 familyhousing, all administered by DOD;

the energy and water development appropriations bill, which funds atomic energy defense activities administered by the Department ofEnergy;

the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill, which finances civil defense activities administered by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency and activities of the Selective Service System;

the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which funds national security-related activities of the FBI; and

the transportation appropriations bill, which funds some defense-related activities of the Coast Guard.

The defense appropriations bill is by far the largest of the defense-related appropriations measures. Table B-1 provides a breakdown FY1999 funding byappropriations subcommittee. The national defense budget function also includesmandatory funding. Net mandatory funding for defense is a relatively small negativeamount, which mainly reflects receipts from sales of items to the public.

B1: FY1999 National Defense Appropriations Request and Current 302(b) Allocations by AppropriationsSubcommittee (amounts in millions of dollars)

Source : Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United StatesGovernment: FY1999 , Table S-8, p. 355; H.Rept. 105-662 ; S.Rept. 105-345 . Note:The most recent House figures were not reported to show national defense funding.

Appendix C: Defense Budget Trends

The Administration's defense budget request for FY1999 and projected defensebudgets through FY2002 reflect the White House-congressional budget agreementthat was finalized in June 1997. Under the Administration plan, extended throughFY2003, budget authority for national defense will grow slowly in nominal terms, butit will be essentially flat when adjusted for inflation. This marks the end of a longperiod in which defense spending has steadily declined from its peak in themid-1980s. By FY2003, budget authority for national defense will be almost 38%below the level in FY1985. Table C1 shows the trend in current year dollars and inconstant FY1999 prices.

C1. Administration National Defense Budget Projections (current and constant FY1999 dollars in billions)

Sources: Current year figures from Office of Management and Budget; deflators from DOD Comptroller.

The cuts in the defense budget over the past several years have been achieved mainly by reducing the size of the military force and by slowing the pace of weaponsmodernization. Under plans established by the Quadrennial Defense Review,released on May 19, 1997, active duty end-strength will decline from 2.2 million inFY1987 to 1.36 million by FY2003, a reduction of 36%. Funding for weaponsacquisition has declined even more steeply. The FY1999 budget requests $48.7billion for weapons procurement and $36.1 billion for research, development, testand evaluation (RDT&E). Adjusted for inflation, proposed procurement funding is65% below the level in FY1985 and the total for procurement plus R&D is down by54%.

The level of procurement funding is a matter of ongoing debate. A key goal of the Quadrennial Defense Review is to increase procurement funding over the nextseveral years, mainly by reducing defense civilian personnel levels and transferringthe savings to weapons acquisition. By FY2001, the Administration projects $61.3billion for procurement (see Table A2 in Appendix A). To reach this level, however,depends on (1) achieving projected savings through reforms in defense businesspractices and (2) controlling the growth of operation and maintenance expenses (seebelow for a further discussion). (For detailed figures on trends in defense spending,see [author name scrubbed] and Mary Tyszkiewicz, Defense Budget for FY1999: DataSummary , CRS Report 98-155, Feb. 23, 1998.)

For the past three years, Congress has added substantial amounts to the annual defense budget request. Because of last year's budget agreement, however, Congresshas no room to add to the FY1999 request. Table C2 shows congressional additionsin to the request in recent years.

C2: Congressional Additions to Administration National Defense Budget Requests, FY1996-98 (current yeardollars in millions)

Sources: FY1996 and FY1997 request, congressional change, and appropriations from Department of Defense, "National Defense Budget Estimates for FY1998,"March 1997; FY1998 request, congressional change, and appropriations fromCongressional Budget Office -- note that the request reflects CBO scoring of theAdministration submission; current estimate for all years from Office of Managementand Budget, "Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, FiscalYear 1999, Feb. 1998.

Note: Later adjustments are due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and technical adjustments. The largest technical adjustments are in contract authority forDefense Working Capital Funds.

For Additional Reading

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief IB93056. Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB98018. China-U.S. Relations , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB92056. Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB97002. The Department of Energy's Tritium Production Program , by [author name scrubbed] and Clifford Lau.

CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues , by Valerie Grasso.

CRS Issue Brief IB87111. F-22 Aircraft Program, by Bert Cooper.

CRS Issue Brief IB92035. F/A-18E/F Aircraft Program, by Bert Cooper.

CRS Issue Brief 96029. Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues , by David Burrelli.

CRS Issue Brief IB93103. Military Medical Care Services: Questions and Answers, by Richard A. Best, Jr.

CRS Issue Brief IB85159. Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief 95076. NATO: Congress Addresses Expansion of the Alliance , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief 91098. Navy Attack Submarine Programs: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB94040. Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement , by Nina Serafino.

CRS Issue Brief IB93062. Space Launch Vehicles: Government Requirements and Commercial Competition , by Marcia Smith.

CRS Issue Brief 98044, Supplemental Appropriations: Emergency Agriculture Aid, Embassy Security, Y2K Computer Conversion, and Defense , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB92115. Tactical Aircraft Modernization Issues for Congress , by Bert Cooper.

CRS Issue Brief IB98028. Theater Air and Missile Defense: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB86103. V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft , by Bert Cooper.

CRS Issue Brief 92008. Women in the Armed Forces , by David Burrelli.

CRS Reports

CRS Report 97-719. The Army Reserve Components: Strength and Force Structure Issues, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-485 . China: Possible Missile Technology Transfers from U.S. Satellite Export Policy -- Background and Chronology , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-155. Defense Budget for FY1999: Data Summary , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 97-316(pdf) . Department of Defense's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Program: A Primer , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-120. Iraq Crisis: U.S. and Allied Forces , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-198. Joint Strike Fighter: Background, Status and Issues , by Bert H. Cooper.

CRS Report 98-476. Long Beach: Proposed Lease by China Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO) at Former Naval Base , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 97-674. Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round? , by David Lockwood.

CRS Report 97-862. National Missile Defense: Status of the Debate , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-359. Navy CVN-77 and CVX Aircraft Carrier Programs: Background and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 97-1044. Navy/DARPA Maritime Fire Support Demonstrator (Arsenal Ship) Program: Issues Arising from its Termination , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 97-700. Navy DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer Program: Background Information and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 97-803. Navy Major Shipbuilding Programs in the FY1998 Defense Authorization and Appropriation Conferences , by [author name scrubbed].

Other Resources

Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 1999 , March 1998.

Congressional Budget Office, A Look at Tomorrow's Tactical Air Forces , by Lane Pierrot and Jo Ann Vines, January 1997.

Congressional Budget Office, Paying for Military Readiness and Upkeep: Trends in Operation and Maintenance Spending , by [author name scrubbed], September 1997.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Health Care: Operational Difficulties and System Uncertainties Pose Continuing Challenges for TRICARE , Report No.HEHS-98-136R, Apr. 10, 1998.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Observations on Personnel Readiness in Later Deploying Army Divisions , Report No. T-NSIAD-98-126,March 20, 1998.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Reports to Congress Provide Few Details on Deficiencies and Solutions , Report No. NSIAD-98-68, March30, 1998.

U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Combat Air Power: Reassessing Plans to Modernize Interdiction Capabilities Could Save Billions , Report No.NSIAD-96-72, May 13, 1996 (60 pages).

U.S. General Accounting Office, Navy Aviation: F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost , Report No. NSIAD-96-98, June 18,1996.

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://appropriations.senate.gov/

House National Security Committee http://www.house.gov/nsc/welcome.htm

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

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

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

Office of Management & Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html

FY1999 Federal Budget Publications http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/budget/index.html

Defense Department and Related Sites

Defense LINK http://www.defenselink.mil/

Defense Issues (Indexed major speeches) http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) FY1999 Budget Materials http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/99budget

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) http://www.asafm.army.mil

Army Link -- the U.S. Army Home Page http://www.army.mil/

Navy On-Line Home Page http://www.navy.mil/index-real.html

Navy Budget Resources Directory http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/budget

Navy Public Affairs Library http://www.navy.mil/navpalib/.www/subject.html

United States Marine Corps Home Page http://www.usmc.mil/

AirForceLINK http://www.af.mil/

Air Force Financial Management Home Page http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/SAFFM/

Air Force FY1999 Budget Justification Material http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/SAFFM/FMB/just.html