On December 15, both the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement on theLabor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, H.R. 4577 , which also incorporates otherappropriations measures. The bill makes an across-the-board cut of about $520 million in FY2001defense funding but also provides about $300 million more for some defense programs. Earlier, onOctober 6, House and Senate conferees announced an agreement on the FY2001 defenseauthorization bill, H.R. 4205 / S. 2549 . The House approved theagreement by a vote of 382-31 on October 11, and the Senate approved the measure by a vote of90-3 on October 11. By a vote of 84-9, the Senate waived a point of order that the cost of the bill'sretiree health care provisions exceeds limits on long-term mandatory spending. The Presidentsigned the bill into law ( P.L. 106-398 ) on October 30. On August 9, the President signed theFY2001 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 4576 , into law ( P.L. 106-259 ), and on July13, the President signed the FY2001 military construction appropriations bill, H.R. 4425 ( P.L. 106-246 ). The military construction bill incorporates FY2000 supplementalappropriations for military operations in Kosovo and elsewhere, for counterdrug assistance toColombia, and for some other defense programs. Congress provides funding for national defense programs in several annual appropriationsmeasures, the largest of which is the defense appropriations bill. Congress also acts every year ona national defense authorization bill, which authorizes programs funded in all of the regularappropriations measures. The authorization bill addresses defense programs in almost precisely thesame level of detail as the defense-related appropriations, and congressional debate about majordefense policy and funding issues usually occurs mainly in action on the authorization. Because thedefense authorization and appropriations bills are so closely related, this report trackscongressional action on both measures. The annual defense appropriations bill provides funds for military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) -- including pay and benefits of military personnel, operation and maintenanceof weapons and facilities, weapons procurement, and research and development -- and for otherpurposes. Most of the funding in the bill is for programs administered by the Department ofDefense, though the bill also provides (1) relatively small, unclassified amounts for the CentralIntelligence Agency retirement fund and intelligence community management, (2) classified amountsfor national foreign intelligence activities administered by the CIA and by other agencies as well asby DOD, and (3) very small amounts for some other agencies. Five other appropriations bills alsoprovide funds for national defense activities of DOD and other agencies including: the military construction appropriations bill, which finances construction of military facilities and construction and operation of military family housing, all administered byDOD; the energy and water development appropriations bill, which funds atomicenergy defense activities administered by the Department of Energy; the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill, which finances civil defense activities administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, activities of theSelective Service System, and support for National Science Foundation Antarctic research; the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which funds national security-related activities of the FBI, the Department of Justice, and some other agencies; and the transportation appropriations bill, which funds some defense-related activities of the Coast Guard. The Administration's FY2001 budget includes $305.4 billion for the national defense budget function, of which $284.3 billion is requested in the defense appropriations bill. See Table A4 inthe appendix for a breakdown of the Administration national defense budget function request byappropriations bill. Action on major defense funding bills is coming to a close this year. So far, the President hassigned into law the FY2001 defense appropriations, the FY2001 military construction appropriations,and, as part of the military construction bill, FY2000 supplemental appropriations. A conferenceagreement on the annual defense authorization has not yet been reached, but it is expectedimminently. Action on major defense bills to date includes the following: FY2001 congressional budget resolution: The House Budget Committee marked up its version of the annual budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 290 , on March 14,and the full House passed a modified version on March 23. The House measure recommended$306.3 billion in budget authority ($307.3 billion in discretionary funding) for the national defensebudget function. The Senate Budget Committee ordered its version of the bill, S.Con.Res. 101 , to be reported on March 30, recommending $305.8 billion for nationaldefense. On the floor, the Senate approved an amendment that added $4 billion to the total, and theSenate passed the amended measure, recommending $309.8 billion for defense, on April 7. On April13, both the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement on the budget resolution whichincludes $309.9 billion for national defense. FY2000 supplemental appropriations: By early March, the Administration had requested $5.3 billion of FY2000 supplemental appropriations, including $2.3 billion for theDepartment of Defense, of which $2.0 billion was for peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and $98million for support of counter-drug activities in Colombia. On March 9, the House AppropriationsCommittee marked up a bill, H.R. 3908 , that provided $9.1 billion in supplementalappropriations, including $5.0 billion for DOD. The additional money for DOD included $1.6billion for petroleum price increases and $854 million for increased defense health program costs. On March 29, the full House approved an amendment to the bill that provided an additional $4billion for defense programs, all of which was made available through September 30, 2001. TheSenate, however, declined to consider the bill and decided to fold supplemental appropriations forFY2000 into regular FY2001 appropriations bills. Under the conference agreement on the FY2001budget resolution, the extra $4 billion that the House provided for defense could be incorporated intothe regular FY2001 defense appropriations bills. On June 29, the House, and on June 30, the Senate,approved a conference agreement on the FY2001 military construction appropriations bills, H.R. 4425 , which includes supplemental appropriations for military operations inKosovo and elsewhere and for counterdrug assistance to Colombia, and the President signed themeasure into law ( P.L. 106-246 ) on July 13. For a table showing congressional action on DODprograms in the supplemental, see Table A8 in the Appendix. For a full discussion of thesupplemental, see CRS Report RL30457(pdf) , Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia,Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and Other Initiatives , by [author name scrubbed] etal. House version of the defense authorization bill: On May 10, the House Armed Services Committee marked up and ordered to be reported its version of the annual defenseauthorization bill, H.R. 4205 . The bill was considered on the floor on May 17 and 18,and the House approved the measure on May 18. House and Senate conferees announced anagreement on the measure on October 6, and the House approved the conference report by a vote of382-31 on October 11, and the Senate approved it on October 12 by a vote of 90-3. The Presidentsigned the bill into law on October 30 ( P.L. 106-398 ). Senate version of the defense authorization bill: On May 10, the Senate Armed Services Committee marked up and ordered to be reported its version of the FY2001 defenseauthorization bill, S. 2549 . Floor action began on June 6, and the Senate approved themeasure on July 13. House version of the defense appropriations bill: On May 11, the HouseDefense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY2001 defense appropriationsbill ( H.R. 4576 ), and on May 25, the full Appropriations Committee completed itsmarkup ( H.Rept. 106-644 ). The House approved the measure on June 7. A conference agreementon the bill was filed on July 17 ( H.Rept. 106-754 ), the House approved the agreement on July 19,the Senate approved it on July 27, and the President signed the bill into law on August 9 ( P.L.106-259 ). Senate version of the defense appropriations bill: The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2001 Defense appropriations bill, S. 2593 on May 18. The Senate began to consider the bill on the floor on June 8 whenit took up the House version, H.R. 4576 and substituted the text of S. 2593 . The Senate approved the measure on June 13. Military construction appropriations: On May 9, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees marked up different versions of the military construction appropriationsbill - S. 2521 in the Senate and H.R. 4425 in the House. The House passedthe bill on May 16, and the Senate on May 18. The House agreed to a conference report on the billon June 29, and the Senate on June 30. The President signed the bill into law ( P.L. 106-246 ) on July13. For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL30510 , Appropriations for FY2001: MilitaryConstruction , by Mary Tyszkiewicz. Table 1. Status of FY2001 Defense Appropriations The Administration requested a total of $305.4 billion in new budget authority for the national defense budget function in FY2001. There are several ways to putthe overall request into context - one is to compare the request to the amountCongress provided for defense in FY2000; a second is to calculate theinflation-adjusted growth or decline in projected spending from year to year; and athird is to compare the amount the Administration requested for FY2001 with theamount it planned a year earlier to request for FY2001. Compared to FY2000 appropriations for defense: In 1999, Congress appropriated a total of $289.7 billion for national defense in FY2000. Thetotal includes amounts provided in the regular appropriations bills (both as regularappropriations and as emergency appropriations) and $3.8 billion FY2000 funds fora pay raise in the FY1999 Kosovo supplemental appropriations measure ( P.L.106-31 ), offset by an across-the-board reduction of 0.38% imposed by the FY2000consolidated appropriations bill ( P.L. 106-113 ). Compared to the FY2000 enactedlevel, the Administration request represented an increase of $15.7 billion for thenational defense budget function, and of $14.8 billion for the Department ofDefense. The rate of real growth or decline: As Table 2 shows, the Administration plan represented real growth of about 1.3% above inflation comparedto the Administration's estimate of the FY2000 defense funding level (whichincluded, among other things, a $2.3 billion supplemental appropriations request.) The Administration projected that defense spending would decline modestly,adjusted for inflation, in FY2002 and would then be essentially level, again adjustedfor inflation, through FY2005. Longer term White House projections, not shownhere, assume that national defense budget authority will remain flat, adjusted forinflation, through FY2009. Although this represents an end to the decline in defensespending that had been underway since the mid-1980s, many argue that the defensebudget should increase, at least at a modest pace, over the next few years in order tomaintain readiness and permit an increase in weapons modernization (see below fora further discussion). Indeed, Secretary Cohen and other senior officials have agreedthat weapons procurement budgets, in particular, should turn up substantially in thefuture. Long-term Administration defense plans, however, still assumed that budgetswould be flat for the foreseeable future. Compared to the previous year's Administration plan for FY2001: In February 1999, when it presented its FY2000 budget request toCongress, the Administration projected FY2001 funding of $300.5 billion for thenational defense budget function and of $286.4 billion for the Department ofDefense. The February 2000 FY2001 request was $4.9 billion higher for the nationaldefense budget function and $4.7 billion higher for DOD. The funding increasesincluded $2.2 billion to cover increased costs of military contingency operations(mainly peacekeeping in Kosovo) and $1.4 billion to cover increased fuel costs. Inthe past, the Defense Department has often had to absorb such increased costs withinits planned budget, and the decision to add money to cover such expenses representsa significant change in policy. (1) Table 2. National Defense Budget Function andDepartment of Defense Budget, Administration Projections, FY1998-2005 (current and constant FY2001dollars in billions) Sources : U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001 , Feb. 2000; CRS calculations based ondeflators from Department of Defense Comptroller. *Note: The FY2000 level represents an Administration estimate that assumes congressional enactment of proposed supplemental appropriations of $2.3 billion. With some notable exceptions, the FY2001 defense request, and the FY2001-2005 long-term plan, reflected the continuation of DOD priorities that hadbeen in place for several years. Significant aspects of the Administration request,including changes from earlier plans, include: Army National Guard and Reserve force levels: Secretary of Defense Cohen decided not to complete reductions in Army National Guard andReserve troop levels that were planned following the 1997 Quadrennial DefenseReview (QDR). The QDR called for a reduction of 45,000 Army Guard and Reservepositions, of which 20,000 were implemented by the end of 1999. As a result, adecision on the remaining 25,000 positions will be deferred pending the outcome ofthe next QDR, to be carried out in 2001. Secretary Cohen explained that ArmyGuard and Reserve forces have taken on much greater responsibility forpeacekeeping and other missions recently. Army "transformation:" The Army has undertaken a major effort to develop and field a more flexible and more easily deployed "mediumweight" force structure. This entails, (1) as an interim step, buying an existingmedium-weight armored vehicle to equip redesigned brigades; (2) acceleratingseveral other weapons programs, such as the Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank missile, theHigh Mobility Artillery Rocket System, the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, anda number of command, control, and communications programs; and (3) acceleratingdevelopment of the Future Combat Vehicle (FCV). It also entails reducing otherprograms to offset at least part of the increased costs. Major program reductions,which were a matter of congressional scrutiny, included slowing and redesigning theCrusader artillery program, and eliminating, among other things, the Grizzly engineervehicle and the Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge. Submarines and other ship-building programs: DOD also made some adjustments in Navy shipbuilding programs - though they were not asextensive as some Members of Congress had expected in the autumn of 1999. Following a Joint Chiefs of Staff review of attack submarine (SSN) force levels,DOD agreed to maintain 55 SSNs in the force, rather than shrink to 50, as had beenplanned. The new FY2001-2005 shipbuilding plan included a reserve of $1.1 billionfor either refueling overhauls of existing SSNs or to convert Trident missilesubmarines into attack submarines carrying large numbers of cruise missiles. Regarding surface combatant ships, the Navy extended development of the newDD-21 destroyer by one year, through FY2005, and it stretched out procurement ofremaining, current-generation, DDG-51 destroyers until then. In a program ofcontinuing interest to Congress, DOD requested no money for LHD amphibious shipprocurement, even though Congress provided partial funding of $356 million for oneship, the LHD-8, in the FY2000 budget. Aircraft programs: DOD made no major changes in fighter aircraft programs, but changes in cargo aircraft procurement were significant. DODrequested 12 C-17 aircraft, rather than 15, as had been planned. Officials expectedthat the decline in U.S. purchases could be made up by British procurement. DODalso requested funds for 4 C-130 aircraft in order, officials said, to avoid temporarilyshutting down the production line, which would cost an estimated $600 million torestart. Some have argued that this vindicates Congress's decision to add funds forC-130s in recent years. The Navy also restructured its trainer aircraftprograms. Missile defense: In its revised long-term budget plan, the Defense Department increased projected funding for National Missile Defense by$2.3 billion over the FY2001-2005 period, to a total of $10.4 billion, saying this willfully support the option of deploying an initial system in Alaska beginning in 2005. DOD also made some changes in theater missile defense (TMD) programs, the mostsignificant being a cut of $859 million, over five years, in the Air Force AirborneLaser (ABL) program. As Congress directed in the FY2000 defense bills, DODincluded separate funding lines for the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense(THAAD) system and for the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) program - both are highaltitude, long-range TMD programs for defense against short- to intermediate-rangemissiles. In presenting the FY2001 defense plan to Congress, Secretary Cohen and other senior officials emphasized one key aspect of the request - the request includes $60.3billion for weapons procurement. The $60 billion weapons budget is particularlyimportant because it has become a litmus test of support for a strong defense. In1995, the Joint Chiefs of Staff urged an increase in procurement funding - then atabout $45 billion - to $60 billion a year beginning in FY1998. This was, theyargued, the minimum level necessary over time to "recapitalize" an inventory ofweapons that would otherwise begin to age very rapidly. The Administrationoriginally committed to reach that level by FY2000, but fell short as money wasreallocated to maintain short-term readiness. Achieving the $60 billion target inFY2001, therefore, became a matter of some political significance. As it has turned out, the $60 billion procurement level is now seen by many defense proponents in Congress as wholly inadequate. In the congressional defensecommittees the issue has been how far short of necessary levels the budget remains,with answers ranging from $20 or $30 billion a year at the low end to $100 billionshort of what is needed at the high end. Early in the year, much of the discussion wasshaped by a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),entitled Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the Next Millennium , (2) which calculatedthat procurement budgets would have to average $164 billion per year (in FY2000prices) over the next decade to replace the weapons in the current inventory withmore advanced versions as systems reach the ends of their planned service lives. The CSIS study made a number of assumptions that have been questioned. Not all parts of the weapons stock will be replaced any time soon (strategic nuclearmissiles and bombers, for example, are not projected to be upgraded in theforeseeable future, and some will be retired if there is a START III agreement); Armytanks may be replaced some time after 2010, but possibly not with similar types ofweapons; costs of tactical aircraft and of Navy ships may be unlikely to grow as fastin the future as CSIS assumes, since the services will be required to reduce weaponsperformance if necessary to stay within budget constraints; modern precisionmunitions ought to be able to replace older ones on much less than a one-for-onebasis, and many of the newer munitions are much cheaper than older ones; and manyweapons may simply be kept in the inventory much longer than nominal service lifeestimates call for, perhaps with upgrades that are less costly than buying newsystems. Several less extreme estimates of required procurement levels, however, still show a shortfall of some magnitude. The Center for Strategic and BudgetaryAssessments calculated that the Administration's procurement program would costabout $80 billion a year (in FY1999 prices) by the later part of the decade. (3) TheCongressional Budget Office testified in 1999 that it would cost about $90 billion ayear (also in FY1999 prices) to sustain a "steady state" procurement rate - i.e., a rateat which enough major weapons would be bought every year to maintain roughly thecurrent number of weapons in the stock, on the assumption that parts of the force willbe allowed to grow older than has historically been the goal. (4) Most recently, CBOcompleted a broader study of what it called a "steady state" budget - i.e., the amountneeded over the long term to maintain a force of the current size and composition. (5) CBO estimates that a "steady state" budget over the next 15 years would have toaverage about $340 billion a year, in FY2000 prices, of which, as CBO calculated ayear earlier, about $90 billion a year would be for procurement. For its part, the Defense Department has acknowledged that procurement budgets may have to grow further in the future, but senior civilian officials havedisputed the various projections by outside analysts. In congressional testimony inFebruary 2000, Secretary of Defense Cohen stipulated that procurement budgets willhave to grow substantially beyond $70 billion a year in the period after FY2008,when several planned weapons programs are scheduled to begin full scaleproduction. But in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee onSeptember 21, DOD Comptroller William Lynn insisted that the CBO overstatesrequirements because it assumes a one-for-one replacement of current generationweapons with like systems in the future, which is not likely given efforts to transformthe force. (6) A corollary issue concerns whether it will be possible to increase funding for weapons procurement over the next several years without a substantial increase inoverall defense spending. The Clinton Administration assumes that spending onoperation and maintenance (O&M) will level off over the next several years and thatsavings from improved efficiency will be allocated to weapons procurement. Historically, however, projected O&M savings have seldom materialized, and O&Mcosts have continued to grow from year to year. It remains possible that increasedprocurement spending could be financed by reducing the size of the force. For thepresent, however, each of the military services has complained that it is beingoverstretched by the demands of the post-Cold War international environment -debate has focused on whether and how much to increase selected elements of theforce, rather than on where to make cuts. For the past several years, the military services have submitted to the congressional defense committees lists of programs that would be candidates for anyadditional funds made available. These lists have substantially guided congressionaladditions to the defense budget. In 2000, the services submitted "unfunded prioritieslists" amounting to more than $16 billion in FY2001 and well over $80 billion in theFY2001-2005 period - the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization submitted its ownlist. As in the past, priorities were about evenly divided between readiness-relatedaccounts and weapons programs. The FY2001 congressional budget resolution approved by the House on March 23, 2000, provided only $1 billion more for national defense than the Administrationrequested, which would not leave much room for additions to service budgets laterin the process. The House approved $4 billion more for defense as part of theFY2000 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 3908 , however. All ofthe extra $4 billion was made available through September 30, 2001, so it wouldrepresent, in effect, an addition to the FY2001 defense budget. Later, the Senateadded $4 billion to its version of the FY2001 budget resolution. These amounts,together with other measures appropriators took subsequently, provided more roomfor Congress to add funds for major weapons programs. Some of the items on service unfunded priorities lists have been particular matters of discussion in Congress. The Army, for example, included proposals torestore funds for programs that were trimmed in order to provide money for themedium-weight force, including Wolverine and Grizzly. The Air Force included aproposal to restore funds for the Airborne Laser, a program that has historically beena matter of congressional interest. Several key issues emerged in Congress over the course of the FY2001 defensedebate, including several matters that carried over from debates in recent years. The Administration requested $305.4 billion in new budget authority for national defense programs - an amount reestimated by CBO to total $305.3 billion.Of this total, $284.5 billion was requested in the defense appropriations bill. Ininitial committee action on the congressional budget resolution, neither the House northe Senate appeared inclined to add much to the Administration request - instead, thepriority in both chambers was to limit total discretionary spending to something lessthat a freeze with growth for inflation. The original House-passed budget resolutionprovided $306.3 billion in budget authority for national defense, just $1 billion morethan the request. The Senate Budget Committee recommended a level of $305.8billion, $500 million above the request. Pressure from defense advocates to provide more for defense was growing in both chambers, however. The House responded by adding $4 billion for defense tothe pending supplemental appropriations bill - in effect an addition to the FY2001funding level. Subsequently, the Senate agreed to an amendment to the budgetresolution to increase the FY2001 level by $4 billion, to $309.8 billion. Theconference agreement provides $309.9 billion, $4.6 billion above the Administrationrequest. See Table A6 in the Appendix for detailed figures through FY2005. The $4.6 billion added to the Administration request allowed Congress some room, at least, to provide funds for selected programs of special interest. Theconference agreement also included a provision that establishes a point of order inthe Senate against measures that would exceed specified levels of funding for defenseand for non-defense discretionary spending - in effect reestablishing so-called"fire-walls" between defense and non-defense appropriations. In the end, thisprovision was, in effect, moot, because Congress later lifted caps on discretionaryspending to accommodate both defense and non-defense increases. Congressional Action: In the past two years, the appropriations committees used a number of devices to increase defense spending substantially while formallyadhering to caps on total discretionary spending. In final action on FY1999appropriations bills, for example, appropriators included in the FY1999Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 105-277 , about $21 billion inemergency supplemental appropriations, of which $8.3 billion was for theDepartment of Defense. Last year, in action on FY2000 bills, appropriatorstook several steps to provide additional funds for defense and non-defenseprograms, including (1) providing $1.8 billion in funding for FY2000 pay raisesas emergency appropriations in an FY1999 supplemental appropriations bill; (2)moving the last pay day of the fiscal year for military personnel into FY2001;and (3) designating $7.2 billion in the FY2000 defense appropriations bill asemergency funding. This year, appropriators have taken some similar steps. As noted above, the House added $4 billion in emergency defense funds to the FY2000supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 3908 , all of which wasmade available through FY2001 - in effect, an addition to the FY2001 defensebudget. The conference agreement on the supplemental (which is included in H.R. 4425 , the FY2001 military construction appropriations bill),includes $1.8 billion of that amount along with some additional funds - see Table A8 in the Appendix for a detailed account of all DOD funds in thesupplemental. The conference agreement on the supplemental also moves thepay date for military personnel back into FY2000, thus freeing up additionaloutlays within the FY2001 discretionary spending caps. Senator Grammobjected to this step and some other related provisions in the supplemental andinsisted that they be reversed. This held up final Senate action on the FY2001defense appropriations bill. The conference agreement on the FY2001 defense appropriations bill also includes additional measures to squeeze extra money into the budget withoutformally violating spending caps. In particular, the bill provides $1,779 millionin emergency FY2000 appropriations. Of this amount, $1.1 billion is for theOverseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund that provides money foroperations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Southwest Asia and elsewhere, and the remaining$679 million is mainly for programs that were in the House-passed version ofthe FY2000 supplemental but that were removed in conference. The bill alsoincludes a general provision that eliminates $1.1 billion in FY2001 funds for theOverseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. So, in effect, the bill providesFY2001 money for contingency operations as in the form of FY2000 emergencyappropriations. If the FY2000 emergency funding is not counted as part of theFY2001 appropriations bill, the conference agreement provides $3.3 billionmore for DOD than the Administration requested. If supplemental funding iscounted, the bill provides an increase of $5.1 billion. Table 3 provides anoverview of the bill by title. Later, however, Congress made an across-the-board cut of 0.22% in all FY2001 discretionary appropriations, including defense, in H.R. 4577 , theLabor-HHS-Education appropriations bill that became a vehicle for severalother appropriations measures at the end of the session. The across-the-boardcut exempted funding for military personnel. In all, the defense reductionamounts to $521 million according to CBO estimates. H.R. 4577 also provided some additional FY2001 funds for defense programs. The majordefense additions are $150 million to repair bomb damage to the USS Cole,$100 million for classified programs in funded through the OverseasContingency Operations Transfer Fund, and $43.5 million for militaryconstruction programs. The bill also includes a measure to facilitate planningfor expansion of the Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. Table 4 provides an estimate of total FY2001 funding for the National DefenseBudget Function, including amounts provided in H.R. 4577 . Table 3: FY2001 Defense Appropriations, Congressional Action by Title (thousands of dollars) Sources: H.Rept. 106-754 , House Appropriations Committee. a. Senate and Conference levels for procurement do not include C-17 procurement, which was provided instead in Title V, Revolving & Management Funds - the Senate provided$2,478,723,000 and the Conference agreement provides $2,428,723. When C-17 funding isincluded, the appropriations conference agreement provides about $2.5 billion more thanrequested for weapons procurement. b. Includes Defense Health Program, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, Drug Interdiction, andOffice of the Inspector General. Table 4: FY2001 National Defense Funding by Appropriations Bill (budget authority in millions of dollars) Sources: CRS based on appropriations tables from House Appropriations Committee in the Congressional Record and Congressional Budget Office estimates. Last year, the Administration requested an extensive set of improvements in military pay and benefits, and Congress responded by approving a somewhat moregenerous package. This year, Administration officials focused on fixing perceivedshortcomings in defense health care, and Congress again considered some moreexpansive alternatives. Two inter-related sets of issues have been particular mattersof attention: (1) adjustments in the "TRICARE" program of health benefits formilitary dependents and (2) military retiree health care. The Administration supported two TRICARE reform measures, one to eliminate co-payments for families enrolled in the TRICARE HMO program, called TRICAREPrime, and another to extend a managed care option, called TRICARE PrimeRemote, to family members of military personnel serving more than 50 miles froma military base. The Administration did not formally propose any changes in medicalprograms for military retirees, though the Joint Chiefs and other senior DefenseDepartment officials informally supported at least two measures. One is to extendnationally a test program, called TRICARE Senior Prime, which provides HMO-typecoverage to retirees with Medicare paying part of the cost for those eligible. Asecond is to provide mail-order pharmacy benefits and Medigap coverage to retireesover age 64 where TRICARE Senior Prime is not available. A number ofdemonstration projects to test alternative ways of providing retiree health care areongoing. (7) In Congress, several measures to reform defense health care programs were proposed. (8) The Senate-passed version of the annualdefense authorization billincluded a guarantee that the Defense Department will provide health care for life tomilitary retirees. (For a discussion of current military medical programs and of somealternatives see CRS Issue Brief IB93103, Military Medical Care Services: Questionsand Answers , by Richard A. Best; CRS Report 98-1006 , Military Health Care: TheIssue of "Promised" Benefits , by David Burrelli; and U.S. General AccountingOffice, Statement of Stephen P. Backhus on "Defense Health Care: Observations onProposed Benefit Expansion and Overcoming TRICARE Obstacles" before theHouse Armed Services Committee Military Personnel Subcommittee, GAO ReportT-HEHS/NSIAD-00-129, March 15, 2000.) Congressional Action: The conference agreement on the congressional budget resolution included a section that reserved funds for a possible increase inmilitary retiree health benefits. The amount available, however, was limited to$50 million in FY2001 and $400 million over the FY2001-2005 period. Thisamount was not enough to cover a substantial expansion of retiree health carebenefits. In its version of the defense authorization bill, however, the Senateapproved a guarantee that DOD would provide care benefits to all retirees. Thiswas a key issue in the authorization conference. The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) version of the defense authorization approved expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote, made someadministrative changes in TRICARE, and added some other benefits forTRICARE participants, including a lower limit on catastrophic costs andpayment of some travel expenses. On retiree health care, the HASC billextended current demonstration programs, established a TRICARE Seniorpharmacy program, and recommended an independent panel to propose a"roadmap" for retiree health care that would establish a permanent benefit byFY2004. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of theauthorization also extended TRICARE Remote, and it established an extensivepharmacy benefit for all retirees, including those eligible for Medicare, with noenrollment fee or deductible. In floor action on June 7, the Senate approved an amendment to the authorization bill by Senator Warner that would eliminate a provision in currentlaw that makes military retirees eligible for Medicare - i.e., all those over age64 - ineligible for military medical care. The provision would take effect onOctober 1, 2001. In effect, this is a guarantee that the Defense Department willprovide full health coverage for life to retirees. Because this measure wouldexceed limits on mandatory spending if extended beyond the end of FY2004,Senator Warner added a provision that would terminate the program after then- but his intention clearly was that the program, if finally approved by Congress,would continue, with an adjustment in caps on mandatory spending being madeto extend it permanently. The Warner amendment also extended the TRICARESenior Prime demonstration program. The authorization conference agreement makes permanent the guarantees provided by the Warner amendment in the Senate bill, and it establishes aseparate trust fund from which costs of the program will be paid. Once the fundis established, the Defense Department will be required to pay into the fund theactuarily determined cost of future benefits for current personnel. Theconference agreement also provides a nation-wide pharmacy benefit for allbeneficiaries, extends TRICARE remote, eliminates co-payments for TRICAREPrime for active duty family members, and extends the TRICARE Senior Primedemonstration program. The budget effects of increased health care benefits are complex and have been a matter of some confusion, in part because some costs for military retireehealth care benefits that the Defense Department now pays out of annualappropriations will be shifted to a new, "mandatory" account. Table 5 providesthe most recent, though still preliminary, Congressional Budget Office estimateof the budgetary impact of the retiree health care provisions in the conferenceagreement. To summarize: (1) Under current law, the Defense Department is projected to provide $24.8 billion in benefits to military retirees over the ten years from FY2001 throughFY2010, all of which would have to be absorbed within total discretionaryappropriations for DOD. (2) The authorization conference agreement provides an additional $40.4 billion of benefits for retirees, of which $200 million in FY2001 and $1.7 billion inFY2002 will be paid for through regular, "discretionary" DOD appropriations. (3) The remaining $38.5 billion in additional benefits, plus $21.4 billion of the amount that DOD is already providing to retirees (i.e., a total of $59.9 billion),will be provided for retiree benefits as "mandatory" spending, in small partthrough Medicare, but mainly, beginning in FY2003, through a new"Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund." (4) Also beginning in FY2003, the Defense Department will make payments to the new fund to reflect the cost of future benefits for current uniformedpersonnel. Through FY2010, these payments will total $29.0 billion. Thisfunding mechanism is known as "accrual accounting," and it has been usedsince FY1985 to finance military retirement costs and has long been used tofinance federal civilian retirement. (5) In all, "discretionary" DOD appropriations will pay $1.9 billion more than under current law in FY2001-2002 for increased retirement benefits, $29.0billion more for health care retirement benefits accrual from FY2003-2010, but$21.4 billion less from FY2003-2010 to reflect the shift of spending on healthcare for retirees beginning in FY2003 to mandatory accounts, for a net increaseof $9.5 billion in discretionary funding over FY2001-2010. (6) Total mandatory spending in the federal budget will increase by $59.9 billion from FY2001 through FY2010 - an amount that has not been offset andthat therefore triggered a point of order against the measure in the Senate undercurrent "pay-as-you-go" budget rules - the Senate waived the point of order bya vote of 84-9. For its part, the appropriations conference agreement provides $963 million above the request for the Defense Health Program - enough, appropriatorsexplained, to implement expanded pharmacy access for retirees as approved inthe House-passed version of the defense authorization bill. The $200 millioncost in FY2001 of the health care provisions in the authorization conferenceagreement was not provided in the appropriations bill, but it may be financedin a number of ways - it could simply be absorbed within the Defense HealthCare program, financed through reprogramming of other DOD funds, or paidfor by later supplemental appropriations by Congress. Table 5: Estimated Costs of Military Retiree Health Care Provisions (current year dollars inmillions) Source : Congressional Budget Office Draft Estimates. *Notes : Non-DOD uniformed personnel include Coast Guard, Public Health Service, andNational Oceanographic and AtmosphericAdministration. DOD will make payments to the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health CareFund to reflect the costof future benefits for current uniformed personnel. In 1996, the Clinton Administration announced a revised NMD development program, know as the "three-plus-three" plan. Under the plan, development andtesting of a missile defense system would proceed for three years, after which adecision would be made on whether to deploy a system. Then, if a decision wasmade to go ahead, the system could begin operation another three years later. As theplan evolved, the so-called "Deployment Readiness Review" (DRR) was scheduledfor June 2000, and the potential date for an initial deployment was pushed back tocalendar year 2005. This year's debate over national missile defense focused mainlyon whether the President should go ahead with the formal DRR as scheduled orwhether, in view of a series of test failures, the President should leave a decision tohis successor. After a test failure in January and some delays in other parts of theprogram, the DRR was pushed back to late in the summer. Another test failure onJuly 7 further intensified the debate. Finally, on September 1, 2000, PresidentClinton announced that he would leave a decision on the program to his successor. Early in the year, much of the discussion in Congress was shaped by two official reports that raised serious questions about the pace of the NMD developmentprogram. The "National Missile Defense Review," a panel study headed by formerAir Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welch, warned last November that the NMDprogram continues to be a high risk development effort and that additional delayscould further compress the decision-making schedule. The Welch panel did notrecommended deferring the DRR, however. The annual report of the Pentagon'sDirector of operational testing, released in February, was more critical, saying thatthe NMD program was being driven by an "artificial decision point." More recently,a bitter debate arose about the adequacy of planned tests of the planned NMDsystem's ability to discriminate between warheads and decoys. MIT scientist TedPostol and others have argued that the test program has been deliberately "dumbeddown" to avoid challenging tests of discrimination. The international reaction to the U.S. NMD deployment plan was also a matter of debate. The Administration has pursued negotiations with Russia on changes inthe 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that would be necessary to permit adeployment without abrogating the agreement. The new Russian leadership hascontinued to oppose deployment, however, and some congressional leaders havepromised to resist any measure that would extend the ABM Treaty. TheAdministration has also had a hard time persuading key allies of the wisdom of anNMD deployment. (For an overview of these and other NMD issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10034, National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]and [author name scrubbed].) The cost of the system also remains an issue. A recent review by the Congressional Budget Office projects somewhat higher deployment costs than theAdministration has estimated. CBO estimates that the initial, limited system that theAdministration is planning would cost about $30 billion, in FY2000 prices, todeploy and operate through FY2015 - a comparable Administration cost estimate,according to CBO, is about $26 billion. CBO also estimates that the expanded"Capability 2" and "Capability 3" systems that the Administration is planning wouldincrease total costs to about $49 billion through FY2015, with an additional $10-11billion needed for a space-based infrared sensor system that has other uses as well - there is no comparable Administration projection. (9) Congressional Action: HASC added $85 million for NMD risk reduction measures, and SASC added $129 million. HASC also included a measure totransfer management of the Space-Based Infrared System-Low (SBIRS-Low)from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This reflectsongoing criticism of Air Force management of the program by some missiledefense advocates. The House Appropriations Committee did not increaseNMD funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee added $129 million forNMD risk reduction and another $10 million to accelerated radar development. The conference agreement on the appropriations bill provides $135 millionmore for risk reduction. The authorization conference agreement provides $129million for risk reduction. This year's key congressional debate about NMD, however, concerned the adequacy of the test program rather than money. On July 13, by a 52-48 vote,the Senate rejected an amendment to the defense authorization bill offered bySenator Durbin that would have required operationally realistic testing againstcountermeasures and an independent assessment of such testing by the Welchpanel. Last year, Congress rejected an Administration proposal to combine funding for the land-based Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and the NavyTheater-Wide (NTW) program, and the status of the two programs was an issue inCongress again this year. Under the current Administration plan, THAAD will bepursued first, followed by NTW, unless the THAAD program experiencesunexpected problems. Congress has traditionally supported an acceleration of theNTW program, however, and some Navy officials claim that the program is ready toproceed more rapidly than the Administration is planning. Ballistic Missile DefenseOrganization (BMDO) officials have proposed a program to accelerate NTW thatwould cost an additional $2.2 billion over the next five years. Other TMD programs have also been a focus of attention, including the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3(PAC-3) system. MEADS is a cooperative program with allies, and somecongressional committees have been doubtful about the long-term affordability of theprogram. Costs of PAC-3 have increased dramatically, and DOD is trying torestructure the program to reduce the price, a matter of some interest in Congress. See Table A4 , in the appendix, for a complete list of TMD and NMD programs andrequested funding. Funding for the Air Force Airborne Laser (ABL) program wasalso be an issue. (For an overview of TMD programs see CRS Issue Brief IB98028, Theater Missile Defense: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. For an overviewof the ABL program, see CRS Report RL30185(pdf) , The Airborne Laser Anti-MissileProgram , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].) Congressional action: HASC, SASC, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC), and the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) all added money forthe Navy Theater Wide program, though in varying amounts - HASC added $25million, SASC and SAC $60 million, and HAC $130 million. Theappropriations conference agreement adds $80 million, as does the authorizationconference agreement. HASC, SASC, and SAC also added funds for theAirborne Laser to restore the program to about the level planned last year, butHAC added no funds. The appropriations conference agreement adds $85million, and a general provision specifically earmarks $233.6 million, the totalprovided, for the ABL; the authorization conference also adds $85 million forABL. HASC also approved an amendment offered by Representative CurtWeldon to transfer management of the ABL to the Ballistic Missile DefenseOrganization. The appropriations conference agreement provides ABL fundingto the Air Force. On a potentially controversial related program, SASC added$41 million for Army space control technology development, including theKinetic Energy Anti-Satellite program. HASC, SASC, HAC, and SAC alladded money for laser R&D programs. On MEADS, the appropriationsconference agreement follows the House bill, which cut funding by $10 million- Administration officials lobbied against the cut, warning that it would disruptadministration of the program and endanger allied funding. The Administration requested funds to procure 12 C-17 cargo aircraft in FY2001, rather than the 15 that had been planned. The hope was that the gap couldbe made up by reaching a purchase or lease agreement with Britain for severalaircraft. Congress has added funds for C-130 aircraft in recent years, but this year theAdministration requested funding for 4 aircraft. (For a discussion of the C-17program, see CRS Issue Brief IB93041, C-17 Cargo Aircraft Program , by[author name scrubbed].) Congressional Action: HASC and HAC added $76 million to procure one additional KC-130J aircraft for the Marine Corps. SASC and SAC added $165million for one additional KC-130J and one additional EC-130J for the AirForce, and the appropriations conference agreement provides the same amounts. All of the committees approved continued funding for the C-17, though SACproposed establishing a "National Defense Airlift Fund" and provided the C-17funding in that account rather than in the Air Force Aircraft Procurementaccount. SAC intends the new airlift fund to operate like the long-establishedNational Defense Sealift Fund, to which money to procure and operate sealiftships is appropriated. HAC made some relatively minor adjustments in theallocation of C-17 funds. The appropriations conference agreement establishesthe National Defense Airlift fund, as SAC recommended, and provides fundingfor C-17 procurement and contractor support in that new account. The Administration did not request funds to purchase additional F-15 and F-16 aircraft. In the past, Congress has added funds for both aircraft to ensure thatproduction lines continue. Recently, Lockheed has received a large order for F-16sfrom the United Arab Emirates, and sales elsewhere are substantial. Foreign F-15orders have not been so strong, however, and the production line in St. Louis mayshut down without additional purchases. Under similar conditions, Congress addedfunds for 5 aircraft last year. Congressional action: HASC added funds for two F-15s and three F-16s. HAC added funds for five F-15s. SASC did not provide funds to procure eitheraircraft, while SAC added funds for 6 F-16s. All committees added somemoney for aircraft modifications and R&D. The appropriations conferencereport provides $400 million to procure five F-15s and $122 million to procurefour F-16s. The authorization conference agreement provides $150 million fortwo F-15s and $52 million for two F-16s. The big three theater aircraft modernization programs are the Navy F/A-18E/F, the Air Force F-22, and the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter. The F-22 was a focusof extensive debate last year. This year, the Administration has requested funds toprocure 10 aircraft, though the status of the testing program remains a matter ofcongressional interest. Now the JSF is becoming a focus of particular attention inCongress as development proceeds. The General Accounting Office has raisedquestions about the development schedule, but program managers insist that theschedule is appropriate. (10) This summer, DODofficials reportedly were consideringwhether to split orders for the aircraft between Boeing and Lockheed, no matterwhich one wins the design competition currently underway, but finally decided notto split the program. Senator Feingold has continued to raised questions about theF/A-18E/F program. (For an overview of all three programs and references to otherCRS products, see CRS Issue Brief IB92115, Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed].) Congressional action: The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was a focus of considerable attention in all of the defense committees. The SASCSubcommittee on Airland Forces initially considered measures that might havereduced JSF funding if the program continued to experience delays. Aftermeeting with Secretary Cohen, however, the full committee decided not toimpose any legislative language limiting the program. The committee-approvedbill eliminated $596 million requested for engineering and manufacturingdevelopment (EMD) - the final stage in a weapon's design - and increasedfunding for demonstration and validation - the earlier R&D stage - by $424million. HASC provided requested funding for EMD, but included languagerequiring the Secretary of Defense to certify that JSF technology is matureenough to warrant beginning EMD. HAC reduced EMD funding by $300million and increased demonstration and validation funding by $150 million. SAC followed the SASC approach, though it provided slightly less money fordemonstration and validation. The appropriations and authorization conferenceagreements provide $203 million for EMD, $393 million below the request, and$486 million for demonstration and validation, $225 million above the request. Appropriations conferees explained that this simply reflects an acknowledgeddelay of three months in beginning the EMD phase. The authorizationconference approved the same shift of funding from EMD to DEM/VAL. (See Table 6 for a summary of congressional action on JSF funding). On otherprograms, HASC reduced requested F/A-18E/F procurement by three aircraft(from 42 to 39). All of the committees supported F-22 funding as requested,and SASC included a provision that would raise the legislatively mandated costcap on F-22 R&D by 1%. The appropriations and authorization conferencesagreements provide funds for 42 F-18s, as requested, and match the request forF-22 procurement and R&D. The authorization conference agreement alsoraises the cost cap on F-22 R&D by 1.5%. Table 6: Congressional Action on FY2001 Joint Strike Fighter Funding (budget authority in millions of dollars) Notes : Dem/Val refers to "Demonstration and Validation." EMD refers to "Engineering and Manufacturing Development." The status of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, a system being built mainly for the Marine Corps, has been a matter of some discussion in the wake of a disastrousaccident on April 8 in which 19 Marines were killed. During the BushAdministration, Congress resisted efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense- against the wishes of the Marine Corps - to terminate the program. Subsequently,the Clinton Administration has continued the development program, and Congresshas remained supportive, occasionally adding money to Administration requests. Congressional action: None of the committees reduced V-22 funding, except for a minor reduction by SAC. The appropriations conference report makes noreduction from the request. The authorization conference also approves plannedprocurement. A key issue early this year was whether Congress would continue to provide funds on an "incremental" basis to purchase LHD-8, a large-deck amphibious ship. Last year, Congress provided $356 million as a down-payment for the $1.8 billionship, but the Administration did not request any money in the FY2001 budget, andalso did not include funds in future Navy budget projections. Later in the year, a keyissue became whether to provide requested funds for two LPD-17-class amphibiousships. Submarine production was also an issue, with a decision pending on whetherto convert 4 Trident missile submarines into cruise missile carriers, and the Navybeginning to argue that 68 submarines are needed to fulfil current requirements. (Fora general discussion of attack submarine issues, see CRS Report RL30045, NavyAttack Submarine Programs: Background and Issues for Congress , by RonaldO'Rourke.) The Navy has also begun to argue more and more explicitly for anincrease in the overall size of the force beyond the planned 300 ships, and therecontinues to be some sentiment on the congressional defense committees to the effectthat planned shipbuilding rates are too low. (For a discussion of shipbuilding issues,see CRS Report RS20535, Navy Ship Procurement Rate and the Planned Size of theNavy: Background and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed].) Congressional action: SASC and SAC added $460 million in incremental funding for LHD-8. SAC also eliminated $1.5 billion buy two LPD-17-classamphibious ships, complaining that the design is not stable and that costs areclimbing. Instead, SAC provided $179 million in advance procurement for twoships to be purchased in FY2002 and $285 million for cost growth in the firstfour ships that have already been ordered. Both HASC and SASC authorizeda five-year block purchase of New Attack Submarines, reflecting a desire toensure adequate funding for the current program to split work between NewportNews Shipbuilding in Virginia and General Dynamics Electric Boat Divisionin Connecticut. The appropriations conference agreement provides $460million for LHD-8, and, in a major change to the Administration request, itlargely follows the Senate on the LPD-17 - i.e., it eliminates $1.5 billion toprocure two ships and instead provides $560 million only for advanceprocurement. The conference report also specifically authorizes continuedincremental funding for LHD-8. The authorization conference agreement alsoapproves $460 million in incremental funding for LHD-8, but, in contrast to theappropriators, authorizers approved the full $1.5 billion requested to procuretwo LPD-17s. The Army plan to develop a new medium weight force has been a matter of some scrutiny in congressional hearings. Some legislators have asked whether alighter, more deployable force can also possess the firepower and survivabilitynecessary for higher intensity conflicts. The main questions, however, concernwhether planned programs have been adequately thought through and reviewed,whether the schedule is achievable, and whether adequate funds are available. Armyleaders acknowledge a shortfall in long-term funding for the program. Somelegislators have urged that funds be restored for programs the Army trimmed in itseffort to find money for the medium weight force. On an indirectly related issue, Congress has been particularly interested in helicopter procurement plans. The Comanche scout helicopter continues to be a highpriority for the Army - Congress has, in the past, supported the program in the faceof efforts by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to slow it down, and thereremains some concern that the program may again be slowed by funding constraints. Congress has also, in the past, supported higher than requested production ofBlackhawk (UH-60) utility helicopters. Congressional action: HASC and SASC both restored funds for the Army "Grizzly" and "Wolverine" programs - i.e., programs that were cut to fund themedium weight force. HAC and SAC restored funds for the Wolverine programin the FY2001 defense appropriations, and the House added funds for Grizzlyto FY2000 supplemental appropriations. Though it did not revise funding,SASC expressed concern about potential delays in the Crusader self-propelledartillery program - an effort to lighten the Crusader is a part of the Armytransformation program. SAC went much further, reducing funding for theCrusader program from $355 million to $200 million, and instructing that theprogram be redirected to develop an entirely new, lighter vehicle compatiblewith the Army transformation initiative. On the whole, Congress has proved tobe very supportive of the Army transformation effort. HASC, SASC, and SACadded some funds for Army transformation-related programs, while HAC addedmuch more, including $800 million to equip a second brigade withmedium-weight equipment. SASC, however, included a provision that theArmy strongly opposed requiring a side-by-side evaluation of alternativearmored vehicles for the interim medium-weight brigade. The appropriations conference agreement (1) restores funds for the Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge, and another bill provides funds for Grizzly as FY2000supplemental appropriations; (2) provides the full $355 million requested forCrusader, but prohibits obligation of the funds until 30 days after DOD submitsan analysis of alternatives to Congress; (3) following HAC, provides $800million above the request for a second Army medium-weight brigade andincludes other funds to accelerate acquisition of a light-weight armored vehicle;and (4) adds funds for 8 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and fully fundsComanche. The authorization conference agreement provides $750 million foradditional procurement and R&D on medium-weight armored vehicles. Theauthorization conference also follows SASC, however, in requiring the Armyto carry out a test program to compare currently deployed armored vehicles withnew wheeled vehicles that the Army wants to buy before a third medium weightbrigade can be outfitted. Congressional support for an acceleration of theArmy's transformation program is perhaps the biggest single story in this year'sdefense debate, though SASC's insistence that the Army evaluate currenttracked armored vehicles for the medium-weight force may slow the program. Last year, in the wake of evidence of security lapses at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, Congress included in the defense authorization bill a measureestablishing an independent agency, called the National Nuclear SecurityAdministration (NNSA), within DOE to oversee counterintelligence and security. Though it initially objected to the proposal, the Administration has now selected adirector for the agency. Congress has continued to review implementation of the newsecurity regime, and DOE security may remain an issue this year. (For a discussionof nuclear weapons security issues, see CRS Report RL30143 , China: SuspectedAcquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Data , by [author name scrubbed]. For a discussion ofDOE reorganization, see CRS Issue Brief IB10036, Restructuring DOE and ItsLaboratories: Issues in the 106th Congress , by William C. Boesman.) Congressional action: HASC imposed some new constraints on DOE funding under its jurisdiction, pending submission of a detailed program forimplementation of the NNSA. The SASC version of the bill included a separatetitle, Title XXXI, that would establish regulations governing the NNSAintended to ensure the agency's independence from the Secretary of Energy. Among other things, provisions would (1) set a specific term for the first headof the agency, (2) permit the President to dismiss the agency head only forinefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, (3) limit the ability of theSecretary of Energy to reorganize, abolish, alter, consolidate, or discontinue anyorganizational unit or component of the NNSA, and (4) prohibit pay of anyDOE employee assigned duties both within NNSA and within the rest of DOE. Several Senators objected to these restrictions, but subsequent further securitybreaches at the Los Alamos lab headed off any challenges on the floor. Theauthorization conference agreement includes the Senate-passed provisions withsome very slight, technical revisions. The Administration has requested $458 million in the Defense Department for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program that provides demilitarizationassistance to states of the former Soviet Union. The Department of Energy budgetalso includes almost $200 million for related DOE programs - $150 million for theMaterials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) program, $22.5 million forInitiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), and $17.5 million for the Nuclear CitiesInitiative (NCI). In the past, Congress has scrutinized the CTR and related programsclosely. Last year, Congress reduced funds for IPP and NCI and prohibited the useof CTR funds to construct chemical weapons destruction facilities in Russia andinstead provided that funds should be used only to improve the security of chemicalweapons stocks. This year, the Administration is again requesting funds for chemicalweapons destruction facilities. (For an overview, see CRS Report 97-1027 , Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues for Congress , by AmyF. Woolf.) Congressional action: HASC eliminated $35 million requested for chemical weapons destruction in Russia, while SASC approved the funding providedRussia guarantees long-term financing for the program and meets some otherconditions. SASC also imposed some conditions on Nuclear Cities Initiativefunding. SAC directed that $25 million of the funds provided be used continuea program to dismantle and dispose of Russian nuclear submarines. Theappropriations conference agreement provides $443 million for CTR, and,following SAC, allocates $25 million for submarines. The conferenceagreement also follows the House authorization and eliminates the $35 millionrequested for chemical weapons demilitarization. The authorization conferenceagreement also approves $443 million for CTR. In all, the FY2001 budget request includes $4.2 billion for ongoing military contingency operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf. The $2 billionincluded for Kosovo was potentially a matter of some debate. Allied burdensharingin Kosovo, in particular, has been a contentious issue. (For an extensive discussion,see CRS Report RL30457(pdf) , Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: PlanColombia, Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and OtherInitiatives , by [author name scrubbed], et al.; CRS Issue Brief IB98041, Kosovo and U.S.Policy, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL30398(pdf) , NATOBurdensharing and Kosovo: A Preliminary Report , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Issue Brief IB10027, Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations , by Steven R. Bowman; andCRS Issue Brief IB94040, Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement , byNina Serafino. Congressional action: In the Senate, FY2000 funding for Kosovo peacekeeping was added to FY2001 Military Construction bill, and that became the focusdebate over the mission. On May 18, however, the Senate eliminated from thebill a measure sponsored by Sen. Byrd to require the withdrawal of U.S. troopsfrom Kosovo after July 1, 2001, unless Congress authorizes continueddeployment. In the House, the issue was addressed in action on the defenseauthorization bill. On May 17, the House approved an amendment sponsoredby Representatives Kasich, Shays, Frank, Condit, and Bachus that would requirethe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo by April 1, 2001 unless thePresident certifies that U.S. allies have met certain burdensharing commitments. This appears to be a major issue in the authorization conference. All of theFY2001 defense bills, however, have approved requested funding forcontingency operations in Kosovo and elsewhere. The appropriationsconference agreement provides requested funding, with minor adjustments toreflect reduced force levels in Bosnia, though $1.1 billion of the total providedfor contingency operations is designated as FY2000 emergency appropriations. The authorization conference agreement does not include the House-passedmeasure that would require troop withdrawals from Kosovo, though it doesinclude extensive reporting requirements concerning allied burdensharing. Conferees also warned that Congress may mandate troop withdrawals in thefuture if allies fail to meet their commitments. In January, the White House announced an agreement with the government of Puerto Rico to resolve the issue of Navy live-fire testing on the island of Vieques. The plan calls for holding a referendum sometime between August 2000 and January2001 on the future of Navy activities on the island, a $40 million economicdevelopment program for the island, and, depending on the outcome of thereferendum, either transfer of Navy property to the General Services Administrationfor cleanup and disposal or an additional $50 million economic developmentprogram. Implementing the President's plan would require congressional approvalof land-transfer legislation, the initial $40-million funding request for Vieques, and(if the referendum supports continued training on the island) the additional$50-million funding request for Vieques. The House Appropriations Committeeincluded $40 million for Vieques in its version of the FY2000 supplementalappropriations bill ( H.R. 3908 ). (For a further discussion see CRS Report RS20458 , Vieques, Puerto Rico Naval Training Range: BackgroundInformation and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed].) Congressional action: SASC supported most elements of the Administration's agreement on Vieques, but HASC did not. SASC authorized both the $40million development program and, with conditions, the additional $50 million,though it did address a part of the agreement transferring land on the oppositeside of the island from the firing range to Puerto Rico. HASC approved therequested $40 million, but not the additional $50 million, and it included aprovision prohibiting transfer of land on the opposite side of the island if thereferendum rejects continued live-fire training. On May 18, however, the fullHouse approved an amendment by Representative Skelton repealing the HASCprovisions. The authorization conference agreement includes measures toimplement the Administration plan. Social issues, such as abortion, gays in the military, and the role of women in the armed forces, have frequently been matters of debate in defense funding bills inrecent years. Two years ago, gender integrated training was a major issue. Last yearCongress debated whether to lift a ban on abortions in military hospitals overseas. This year, gays in the military is again a focus of attention, though there has not beenany specific proposal in Congress to revise current policy. Congressional action: The HASC military personnel subcommittee failed, on a tie vote, to approve an amendment by Representative Sanchez to remove theprohibition on abortions in military hospitals abroad, and the full committeelater rejected the same amendment. On May 18, the full House rejected asimilar Sanchez amendment. HASC also approved an amendment offered byRepresentative Bartlett to require Congress to be notified 120 days beforeimplementation of any plan to allow women to serve on Navy submarines. OnJune 20, the Senate tabled, by a 50-49 vote, an amendment to the authorizationbill by Senators Murray and Snowe to repeal the restriction on use of militaryfacilities for privately funded abortions. Secretary of Defense Cohen has again urged Congress to approve more rounds of military base closures, now starting in 2003. Officials argue that cuts in thedefense infrastructure have lagged far behind cuts in the size of the force and thatfunding for major weapons programs in the future depends on improving efficiencyover the next few years. For the past three years, Congress has rejected additionalbase closure rounds. In part, opponents have complained that the White Housepoliticized the base closure process in 1995 when it acted to keep aircraftmaintenance facilities in Texas and California open as privately run operations afterthe Base Closure Commission had recommended their closure. (For a discussion, see CRS Report RL30440 , Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand?, by David E.Lockwood; and CRS Report RL30051 , Military Base Closures: Time for AnotherRound? , by [author name scrubbed].) Congressional action: Neither SASC nor HASC addressed the issue of base closures, and on June 7, by a vote of 35-63, the Senate rejected an amendmentto the authorization bill by Senators Levin and McCain to authorize additionalclosure rounds in 2003 and 2005. In recent years, must-pass defense bills, particularly the defense authorization, have been used as a vehicle for measures regarding technology transfers to China andother China policy matters, and it was widely expected that security relations withTaiwan, in particular, could be a matter of debate this year. Earlier this year, theHouse approved H.R. 1838 , the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, thatwould require expanded U.S.-Taiwan military exchanges and establishment of directmilitary communications and that would mandate annual reports on the securitysituation in the Taiwan Strait. The bill as passed did not mandate sale of particularkinds of weapons to Taiwan, but China reacted very negatively to the measure andwarned that it would "respond strongly" if advanced weapons were sold to Taiwan. The Senate has not yet taken up its version of the bill, S. 693 . OnFebruary 21, the PRC government issued a White Paper, "The One-China Principleand the Taiwan Issue," which offered a mix of conciliatory gestures and a newominous-sounding threat that if Taiwan authorities indefinitely delay cross-Straittalks, this may prompt use of force. (For an overview, see CRS Issue Brief IB98018, China-U.S. Relations , by Kerry B. Dumbaugh; CRS Issue Brief IB98034, Taiwan:Recent Developments and U.S. Policy Choices , by Kerry B. Dumbaugh; CRS Report RS20365 , Taiwan: Annual Arms Sales Process , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RS20483, Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990 , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL30341 , China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy - KeyStatements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL30379(pdf) , Missile Defense Options for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan: AReview of the Defense Department Report to Congress , by [author name scrubbed], ShirleyA. Kan, and [author name scrubbed].) Congressional action: HASC urged the Administration to establish a Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense University, as wasauthorized last year. But China policy in general was not addressed this year'sdefense bills. All of the military services have been pursuing changes in military technology that have been loosely described as elements of a "revolution in military affairs." Periodically, some Members of Congress have urged greater efforts to pursue radicalchanges in weaponry and in military doctrine, but with few specific proposals. Thisyear, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner has joined thediscussion, urging the services to pursue development of unmanned systems, both forground and for aerial combat. In statements to the press, Senator Warner has saidthat he plans to set a goal of having one-third of all deep strike aircraft unmanned by2010 and one-third of all ground combat vehicles unmanned by 2015. (11) This wouldrequire dramatic changes in current military R&D programs. Congressional action: SASC cited its interest in harnessing new technologies as a rationale for several measures, including increased funding for unmannedaerial vehicles for surveillance and related missions (though not for combat),increased funding for counter-terrorism and protection against cyber-warfare,an increased R&D funding. SASC also included a provision requiring theDefense Department to develop a plan aimed at meeting the ambitious goals foruse of unmanned combat systems that Senator Warner laid out - i.e., thatunmanned systems will constitute one-third of deep-strike aircraft by 2010 andone-third of ground combat vehicles by 2015. The authorization conferenceagreement approves funds for a number of programs designed to strengthendomestic defenses against terrorism, biological weapons, and informationwarfare and to encourage development of advanced technologies. Theconference agreement also includes the Senate provisions on the use ofunmanned combat systems. H.Con.Res. 290 (Kasich) A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the UnitedStates government for FY2001, revising the congressional budget for the UnitedStates government for FY2000, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels foreach of fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Ordered to be reported, March 14, andreported by the House Budget Committee ( H.Rept. 106-530 ), March 20, 2000. Approved by the House, with amendments, (211-207), March 23, 2000. Taken up bythe Senate, which substituted the text of S.Con.Res. 101 , and passed bythe Senate (51-45), April 7, 2000. Conference report filed ( H.Rept. 106-577 ), April12, 2000. Conference report approved by the House (220-208) and the Senate(50-48), April 13, 2000. S.Con.Res. 101 (Domenici) An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for theUnited States government for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Ordered favorablyreported by the Senate Budget Committee, March 30, 2000. Considered by theSenate, April 4-7, 2000. Incorporated as a substitute amendment into H.Con.Res. 290 and approved by the Senate (51-45), April 7, 2000. H.R. 3908 (C.W. Bill Young) An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscalyear ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Reported by the HouseCommittee on Appropriations ( H.Rept. 106-521 ), March 14, 2000. Approved by theHouse of Representatives, with amendments (263-146), March 30, 2000. H.R. 4205 (Spence) A bill to authorize appropriations for FY2001 for military activities of theDepartment of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnelstrengths for FY2001, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the ArmedServices Committee, May 10, 2000. Reported by the Armed Services Committee( H.Rept. 106-616 ), May 12, 2000. Considered by the full House, May 17-18, 2000. Approved by the House (353-63), May 18, 2000. Senate took up H.R. 4205 , substituted the text of S. 2549 , as amended, and approved H.R. 4205 (97-3), July 13, 2000. Conference agreement ordered to bereported ( H.Rept. 106-945 ), October 6, 2000. Conference report approved by theHouse (382-31), October 11, 2000. Conference report approved by the Senate (90-3),October 12, 2000. President signed the bill into law ( P.L. 106-398 ), October 30,2000. S. 2549 (Warner) A bill to authorize appropriations for FY2001 for military activities of theDepartment of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnelstrengths for FY2001, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the ArmedServices Committee, May 9, 2000. Reported by the Senate Armed ServicesCommittee ( S.Rept. 106-292 ), May 12, 2000. Considered by the Senate, June 6, 7,8, 14, 19, 20, and 30, and July 12 and 13, 2000. Senate took up H.R. 4205 , substituted the text of S. 2549 , and approved H.R. 4205 (97-3), July 13, 2000. H.R. 4576 (Jerry Lewis) Making appropriations for FY2001 for the Department of Defense and for otherpurposes. Approved by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, May 10,2000. Approved and ordered reported by the House Appropriations Committee( H.Rept. 106-644 ), May 25, 2000. Approved by the House (367-58), June 7, 2000. Senate took up H.R. 4576 , deleted all after the enacting clause andsubstituted the text of S. 2593 as reported by the Senate AppropriationsCommittee, June 8, 2000. Considered by the full Senate June 8-9, and 12-13, 2000. Approved by the Senate (95-3), June 13, 2000. Conference agreement filed ( H.Rept.106-754 ), July 17, 2000; approved by the House (367-58), July 19, 2000; approvedby the Senate (91-9), July 27, 2000. President signed the bill into law ( P.L. 106-259 ),August 9, 2000. S. 2593 (Stevens) An original bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for thefiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. Reported by theSenate Appropriations Committee ( S.Rept 106-298 ), May 18, 2000. Senatesubstituted the text of S. 2593 into H.R. 4576 , June 8,2000. CRS Issue Brief IB93056. Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations , by Steven R. Bowman. CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB98018. China-U.S. Relations, by Kerry B. Dumbaugh. CRS Issue Brief IB92056. Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Current Policy Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB87111. F-22 Aircraft Program , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10012. Intelligence Issues for Congress , by Richard A. Best. CRS Issue Brief IB98041. Kosovo and U.S. Policy, by [author name scrubbed] and JulieKim. CRS Issue Brief IB10027. Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations ; by Steven R. Bowman. CRS Issue Brief IB93103. Military Medical Care Services: Questions and Answers , by Richard A. Best. CRS Issue Brief IB85159. Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues , by Robert Goldich. CRS Issue Brief IB10034. National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed] and Amy Woolf. CRS Issue Brief IB98038. Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB94040. Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement , by Nina Serafino. CRS Issue Brief IB10036. Restructuring DOE and Its Laboratories: Issues in the 106th Congress ; by William C. Boesman. CRS Issue Brief IB92115. Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB98034. Taiwan: Recent Developments and U.S. Policy Choices , by Kerry B. Dumbaugh. CRS Issue Brief IB98028. Theater Missile Defense: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB86103. V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft , by Bert H. Cooper. CRS Issue Brief IB81050. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 95-387 . Abortion Services and Military Medical Facilities , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30185(pdf) . The Airborne Laser Anti-Missile Program , by [author name scrubbed] and [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 RL30143 . China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Data , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30341 . China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy-Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 95-1126. Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs since 1970 Involving U.S. Military Forces Withdrawals from Overseas Deployments , by Richard F.Grimmett. CRS Report 98-756 . Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills: A Chronology, FY1970-1999 , by Gary K. Reynolds. CRS Report RL30447(pdf) . Defense Budget for FY2001: Data Summary , by Mary Tyszkiewicz and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30002(pdf) . A Defense Budget Primer , by Mary Tyszkiewicz and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30392. Defense Outsourcing: The OMB Circular A-76 Program , by Valerie Grasso. CRS Report RL30574(pdf) . Defense Outsourcing: OMB Circular A-76 Policy and Options for Congress - Proceedings of a CRS Seminar , by Valerie Grasso. CRS Report 97-316(pdf) . Defense Research: A Primer on the Department of Defense's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Program , by John D.Moteff. CRS Report 98-873. Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccination Program , by Steven R. Bowman. CRS Report RL30639(pdf) . Electronic Warfare: EA-6B Aircraft Modernization and Related Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20203(pdf) . The Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative for the Former Soviet Union: Administration Proposals for FY2000 , by Amy Woolf and CurtTarnoff. CRS Report RL30113 . Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30172. Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1999 , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30563 . Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status, and Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20125. Kosovo: Issues and Options for U.S. Policy , by Steven J. Woehrel. CRS Report RL30624 . Military Aircraft, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30051 . Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round? , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-823(pdf) . Military Contingency Funding for Bosnia, Southwest Asia, and Other Operations: Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30184(pdf) . Military Interventions by U.S. Forces from Vietnam to Bosnia: Background, Outcomes, and "Lessons Learned" for Kosovo , by NinaM. Serafino. CRS Report 98-765(pdf) . Military Youth Programs: ChalleNGe and STARBASE , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30379(pdf) . Missile Defense Options for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan: A Review of the Defense Department Report to Congress , by RobertD. Shuey, [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-751(pdf) . Missile Defense: Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Flight Testing , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30427 . Missile Survey: Ballistic and Cruise Missiles of Foreign Countries , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-955. National Guard & Reserve Funding, FY1990-1999 , by Mary Tyszkiewicz. CRS Report RS20062. National Missile Defense and the ABM Treaty: Overview of Recent Events , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20052. National Missile Defense: The Alaska Option , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30398(pdf) . NATO Burdensharing and Kosovo: a Preliminary Report , Coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30045. Navy Attack Submarine Programs: Background and Issues for Congress , by [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 97-700. Navy DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer Program: Background Information and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20535. Navy Ship Procurement Rate and the Planned Size of the Navy: Background and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-1027 . Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30457(pdf) . Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia, Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance, and Other Initiatives ,by Larry Q. Nowels, [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], Nina Serafino, and MelindaT. Gish. CRS Report RS20483. Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990 , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20370 . The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act and Underlying Issues in U.S. Policy , by Kerry B. Dumbaugh. CRS Report RL30231. Technology Transfer to China: An Overview of the Cox Committee Investigation Regarding Satellites, Computers, and DOE LaboratoryManagement , by Marcia Smith, Glenn McLoughlin, and William Boesman. CRS Report 98-767(pdf) . U.S. Military Participation in Southwest Border Drug Control: Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30345(pdf) . U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Policy, Force Structure, and Arms Control Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20412. Weapons of Mass Destruction-The Terrorist Threat , by Steven R. Bowman and Helit Barel. Congressional Budget Office, "Aging Military Equipment," Statement of Lane Pierrot, Senior Analyst, National Security Division, before the Subcommitteeon Military Procurement, Committee on Armed Services, United States Houseof Representatives, February 24,1999. Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2001: A Preliminary Report , March 2000. Congressional Budget Office, Budgetary and Technical Implications of the Administration's Plan for National Missile Defense , by Geoffrey Forden, April2000. Congressional Budget Office, Budgeting for Defense: Maintaining Today's Forces , by Lane Pierrot, September 2000. Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options for National Defense , March 2000. Congressional Budget Office, Cooperative Approaches to Halt Russian Nuclear Proliferation and Improve the Openness of Nuclear Disarmament , by DavidMosher and Geoffrey Forden, May 1999. Congressional Budget Office, The Drawdown of the Military Officer Corps , November 1999. Congressional Budget Office, Making Peace While Staying Ready for War: The Challenges of U.S. Military Participation in Peace Operations , December 1999. Congressional Budget Office, "Modernizing Tactical Aircraft," Statement of Christopher Jehn, Assistant Director, National Security Division, before theSubcommittee on Airland Forces, Committee on Armed Services, United StatesSenate, March 10, 1999. Congressional Budget Office, Paying for Military Readiness and Upkeep: Trends in Operation and Maintenance Spending , by [author name scrubbed], September 1997. Congressional Budget Office, Review of "The Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Closure ," July 1998. Congressional Budget Office, What Does the Military "Pay Gap" Mean? , June 1999. U.S. General Accounting Office, Cooperative Threat Reduction: DOD's 1997-98 Reports on Accounting for Assistance Were Late and Incomplete ,GAO/NSIAD-00-40, Mar. 15, 2000. U.S. General Accounting Office, "Defense Health Care: Observations on Proposed Benefit Expansion and Overcoming TRICARE Obstacles," by Stephen P.Backhus, Director of Veterans' Affairs and Military Health Care Issues, beforethe Subcommittee on Military Personnel, House Committee on Armed Services,GAO/T-HEHS/NSIAD-00-129, Mar. 15, 2000. U.S. General Accounting Office, F-22 Aircraft: Development Cost Goal Achievable If Major Problems Are Avoided , GAO/NSIAD-00-68, Mar. 14, 2000. U.S. General Accounting Office, "Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Development Schedule Should Be Changed to Reduce Risks," by Louis J. Rodrigues, Directorof Defense Acquisitions Issues, before subcommittees of the House Committeeon Armed Services. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-132, Mar. 16, 2000. Information regarding the defense budget, defense programs, and congressional action on defense policy is available at the following web or gopher sites. Congressional Sites/OMB House Committee on Appropriations http://www.house.gov/appropriations Senate Committee on Appropriations http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/ House Armed Services Committee http://www.house.gov/hasc/ Senate Armed Services Committee http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/ CRS Appropriations Products http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov General Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov Office of Management and Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/ FY2000 Federal Budget Publications http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/index.html Defense Department and Related Sites Defense LINK http://www.defenselink.mil/ Defense Issues (Indexed major speeches) http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/ Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) FY2001 Budget Materials http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2001budget/ Army Link -- the U.S. Army Home Page http://www.army.mil/ Navy On-Line Home Page http://www.navy.mil/index-real.html Navy Budget Resources http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/01pres/db_u.htm Navy Public Affairs Library http://www.navy.mil/navpalib/.www/subject.html United States Marine Corps Home Page http://www.usmc.mil/ AirForceLINK http://www.af.mil/ Air Force Financial Management Home Page http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/ Air Force Budget Resources http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2001/afpb.html Table A1. Defense Appropriations, FY1997 toFY2001 (budget authority in billions of current year dollars) a Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001 , Feb. 2000, and prior years. a. These figures represent current year dollars, exclude permanent budget authoritiesand contract authority, and reflect subsequent rescissions and transfers. Table A2. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs, FY2001:Authorization (amounts in millions of dollars) * Notes : All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. For Ballistic MissileDefense, the military construction requestis $103.5 million, which is often reported as part of the total elsewhere. For a full breakdown of Ballistic MissileDefense funding,see Table A4 below. House authorization provides funds for the Airborne Laser program in theBallistic Missile Defense program. Table A3. Congressional Action on Major Weapons Programs,FY2001:Appropriations (amounts in millions of dollars) * Notes : All amounts exclude initial spares and military construction. For Ballistic MissileDefense, the military construction requestis $103.5 million, which is often reported as part of the total elsewhere. For a full breakdown of Ballistic MissileDefense funding,see Table A4 below. The conference agreement provides C-17 procurement funds in Title V,Revolving and Management Funds,rather than in Title III, Procurement. Table A4. Ballistic Missile DefenseFunding (budget authority in millions of dollars) Sources: H.Rept. 106-616 ; S.Rept. 106-292 ; S.Rept. 106-298 ; H.Rept. 106-754 ; H.Rept. 106-945 . * Note : The House authorization adds $241 million for SBIRS-Low to PE 63871C, National Missile Defense. Table A5. National Defense Budget Request byAppropriations Bill (millions of dollars) Source: Department of Defense Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FiscalYear 2001 , March 2000. Table A6. National Defense Budget FunctionFunding in the Congressional Budget Resolution (current year dollars in billions) Sources : H.Con.Res. 290 ; S.Con.Res. 101 . Table A7. Administration National Defense Budget Function Projection by Appropriations Title, Budget Authority, FY1999-2005 (current year dollars inbillions) Sources : U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the UnitedStates Government, Fiscal Year 2001 , Feb. 2000. Table A8: FY2000 Supplemental Appropriations for the Department of Defense (millions of dollars) Sources : Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government for FiscalYear 2001: Appendix, Feb. 2000; House Appropriations Committee; House Rules Committee; H.Rept. 106-521 ; S.Rept. 106-290 ; H.Rept. 106-710 .

Summary: House and the Senate action on annual FY2001 defense funding was completed in December when Congress approved the FY2001 omnibus appropriations bill. In all, Congress provided about$310.0 billion for national defense, including $287.8 billion in the Department of DefenseAppropriations bill. The national defense total is about $4.7 billion above the Administration'srequest. The conference agreement on the FY2001 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations/Omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 4577 , approved in the House and Senate on December 15,provides some additional FY2001 funds for the Department of Defense, including $150 million torepair the USS Cole, $100 million for classified programs related to operations overseas, and $43.5million for military construction. Section 1403 of the bill also makes an across-the-board cut of0.22% in all FY2001 discretionary funds, including defense, though military personnel funding isexempted from the reduction. In all, this will reduce FY2001 defense funding by $520 million. On October 11, the House approved an a conference agreement on the FY2001 defense authorization bill, H.R. 4205 , by a vote of 382-31. The Senate approved the agreementon October 12 by a vote of 90-3. The President signed the bill into law on October 30 ( P.L.106-398 ). A conference agreement on the defense appropriations bill, H.R. 4576 , wasapproved in the House on July 19 and in the Senate on July 27, and the President signed the bill onAugust 9 ( P.L. 106-259 ). Earlier the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement on theFY2001 military construction appropriations bill, H.R. 4425 , and the President signedthe measure into law on July 13 ( P.L. 106-246 ). This bill includes supplemental appropriations forFY2000 military operations in Kosovo and Colombia, for increased fuel and medical care costs, andfor some other defense programs. In action on key issues, authorization conferees agreed to (1) provide a permanent guarantee of health care for Medicare-eligible military retirees that was included in the Senate bill, but thatexpired after two years; (2) provide compensation for workers made ill by exposure to toxicmaterials in the nation's nuclear weapons program; (3) drop a House-passed provision mandatingtroop withdrawals from Kosovo if allies do not meet burdensharing commitments (though the billincludes extensive reporting requirements); and (4) drop anti-hate crimes legislation that wasattached to the Senate-passed bill. The retiree health care measure will make all military retireeseligible for health care through the military health care system. Conferees also agreed to acomprehensive retail and mail-order pharmacy benefit. According to preliminary CBO estimates,the bill's retiree health care provisions will cost $40 billion more over the next 10-years than benefitsDOD currently provides. Several major weapons programs also received attention in this year's defense debate. The authorization and appropriations conference agreements reduced funding for the Joint Strike Fighterbecause of program delays. The authorization and appropriations bills also approved additionalfunding for the Army's "transformation" plan, including funds to equip a second medium-weightbrigade in FY2001. The authorization conference, however, included a requirement that the Armycarry out additional comparative testing of armored vehicles before outfitting a third brigade. Key Policy Staff Abbreviations: FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division G&F = Government and Finance Division RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division