President Clinton’s FY 1999 defense budget and the FY 1999-2003 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) seek to ensure America’s security and sustain the nation’s vital global leadership role. This budget and FYDP strike a prudent balance between immediate military needs, such as high readiness and quality of life, and long-term safeguards, such as development and procurement of new weapons and technologies. They also reflect the recommendations of the Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)—last year’s comprehensive reassessment of U.S. military strategy, force structure, readiness, modernization, and infrastructure.

The President’s FY 1999 budget requests $257.3 billion in budget authority and $252.6 billion in outlays for the Department of Defense. Funding levels in the President’s budget are in compliance with last year’s budget agreement between the White House and congressional leaders.

DoD budget authority requested for FY 1999 is, in real terms, about 40 percent below its level in FY 1985, the peak year for inflation-adjusted defense budget authority since the Korean War.

As a share of America’s gross domestic product, DoD outlays are expected to fall to 3.0 percent in FY 1999, well below average levels during the past five decades. Other long-term trends for defense spending are detailed in Appendix B, as is budget authority by appropriations title and by DoD component, in current and constant dollars.

DoD continues to give high priority to keeping U.S. forces ready to fight and win. This commitment to force readiness is reflected in strong funding support for training, supplies, maintenance of weapons and equipment, and other preparedness essentials. Since these requirements are mostly paid for in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of the Services, the sufficiency of these accounts was a crucial concern in the formulation of the FY 1999 budget.

Force readiness also requires taking good care of uniformed people and their families, which in turn requires strong support for quality of life issues like pay, housing, and medical services. The FY 1999 budget funds the full military pay raise provided for under law, and also provides strong support for the construction and maintenance of family and bachelor housing; cost-of-living allowances; child care; community and family support; and morale, welfare, and recreation programs.

The high readiness and quality of U.S. forces is best measured by the actual performance of U.S. forces. When called upon for a wide variety of missions, America’s armed forces continue to react swiftly and decisively.

The U.S. force structure is roughly two-thirds of its size when the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989. Table 17 shows the decline in personnel strengths since FY 1987, the post-Vietnam War peak for the end strength of both active duty military and DoD civilians. Selected Reserve strength peaked at 1,170,600 in FY 1989. The decrease in DoD civilians reflects reductions in forces and facilities, as well as reforms to streamline defense infrastructure and improve management. Other personnel data is in Appendix C.

Since the late 1980s, the Department was able to reduce its purchases of new weapons without undermining the battlefield superiority of U.S. forces. One reason was the modernization achieved during the years of strong defense spending during the 1980s. In spite of the sharp decline in procurement funding, the average age of U.S. military equipment generally did not increase, because as the forces were drawn down, older equipment was weeded out. But now that the drawdown in forces is nearly over, DoD’s reprieve from equipment aging is over as well.

To ensure military readiness in the long term, the Department must modernize U.S. forces with new systems and upgrades to existing systems in order to maintain America’s technological and qualitative superiority on the battlefield.

The Department continues to move strongly toward its goal of increasing procurement funding to $60 billion by FY 2001, a target the Administration established in its FY 1996 budget. The FY 1999 budget requests $48.7 billion for procurement. By FY 2001, procurement spending is projected to reach $61.3 billion.

For the modernization of U.S. forces to succeed, Congress must support the specific spending allocation proposed for DoD weapons development and procurement. Additionally, the Department must achieve its projected savings from infrastructure reductions, acquisition reform, and other initiatives. For its long-term modernization needs, the Department’s FY 1999 budget authority request for science and technology is $7.2 billion.

The FYDP and FY 1999 budget reflect Secretary Cohen’s decisions in his November 1997 Defense Reform Initiative; both incorporate changed personnel levels and all savings that can be achieved without legislation. The Initiative seeks to ensure that DoD support activities are as responsive as possible to U.S. warfighting needs and to produce budget savings to fund weapons modernization and other requirements.

Each year Congress includes substantial spending in the defense budget that was not requested by the President. Sometimes the additions are for weapons or other uses included in the FYDP, but not planned for inclusion until some time after the budget year. In these cases, the issue is the timing of the expenditures—not whether the spending is needed. But additions that are for non-FYDP uses constitute a more clear-cut diversion of funds from the spending requirements determined during the Department’s rigorous program and budget review. Unrequested spending is especially damaging when it fails to take account of the future spending that it will generate.

Events since the end of the Cold War have demonstrated the need for America to retain a strong global leadership role and a prudent defense posture. President Clinton’s FY 1999 defense budget, and the strategy and plans on which it is based, supports that need while remaining fiscally responsible.