This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-944 
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: Better Information Could Improve 
Visibility over Adjustments to DOD's Research and Development Funds' 
which was released on September 17, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to the Subcommittees on Defense, Committees on Appropriations, 
U.S. Senate and House of Representatives: 

September 2004: 

DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS: 

Better Information Could Improve Visibility over Adjustments to DOD's 
Research and Development Funds: 

GAO-04-944: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-944, a report to the Subcommittees on Defense, 
Committees on Appropriations, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Congress recognizes that the DOD needs some flexibility to adjust 
research and development program levels. A key mechanism—below 
threshold reprogramming (BTR)—enables DOD to adjust program funding 
levels without seeking prior congressional approval as long as a 
certain dollar amount or percentage threshold is not exceeded.

In response to a mandate by the appropriations committees, this report 
addresses (1) the quality of the information available about DOD’s use 
of BTRs and withheld funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and (2) the 
amount and volume of BTRs and temporarily withheld funds for those 
years. The report also addresses recent congressional direction on 
providing information on funding adjustments.

DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress provide BTR 
information of limited quality but noted that the issues GAO raised in 
this regard can be addressed and that DOD was open to suggestions and 
will gladly work with committee staff to satisfy their needs. DOD also 
offered suggestions to clarify language on certain issues and to put 
its use of BTRs more in context. DOD’s willingness to work with 
Congress is a constructive response that can lead to reporting changes 
that can meet the needs of both Congress and DOD. GAO has made 
appropriate clarifications of language and overall BTR context.

What GAO Found: 

DOD’s recent reports to Congress provide BTR information of limited 
quality and do not contain data about funds withheld from DOD’s 
research and development programs in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. DOD 
delivered its reports to Congress months after the time that Congress 
began considerations for the new budget, and accessibility was limited 
because the reports were classified. BTR data in the reports to 
Congress were derived through subtraction, rather than totaling the 
actual value of BTR transactions. The reports do not provide a 
complete picture of how BTRs are implemented on a program-by-program 
level. DOD has no overall system for maintaining detailed BTR and 
withhold data across organizations, although such data can be 
reconstructed from DOD’s multiple data collection systems.

GAO found that DOD organizations used BTRs frequently to increase or 
decrease research and development program funding levels. The Air 
Force, Army, Navy, and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) executed 1,927 
BTRs, amounting to about $1 billion in fiscal year 2003. This amounted 
to about 2 percent of the research and development funds for these 
organizations. Among the programs affected by BTRs, about half lost 
funds and more than one-fourth gained funds. While the dollar amounts 
and frequency differed for fiscal year 2002, the patterns were similar. 
Although GAO did not observe any instances in which DOD’s use of BTRs 
exceeded the thresholds, GAO’s work was not conclusive on this point, 
as GAO did not design steps to assess compliance with thresholds. 

Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research and Development 
Programs: 

[See PDF for image]

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (data); GAO (analysis).

[a] Office of the Secretary of Defense data for BTRs were not 
available.

[End of table] 

DOD withheld about $2.8 billion in funds in fiscal year 2003. 
Officials cited several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds, 
including accommodating unanticipated changes or events, implementing 
congressional mandates, and, in the case of some withholds, 
controlling the execution of individual programs. Congress has 
required DOD to provide better and more timely information on 
reprogramming and withhold activities.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-944.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Francis at (202) 
512-4841 or francisp@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

DOD Collects and Provides BTR Information of Limited Quality for 
Congress and Does Not Provide Congress with Withhold Data: 

BTRs and Withholds Used Frequently to Adjust or Control Programs' 
Funding Levels: 

Recent Congressional Direction for Better Information: 

Conclusions: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix III: Additional Data: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Summary of Features of Data Collection Systems for Military 
Departments and MDA: 

Table 2: Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research and 
Development Programs: 

Table 3: Effect of BTRs on Funding Levels for Two Air Force Programs in 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 4: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Reductions in Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Table 5: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Additions in Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Table 6: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 7: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 8: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2003 Programs: 

Table 9: Appropriations for Research and Development Programs: 

Table 10: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 11: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 12: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 13: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 14: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 15: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 16: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 17: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 18: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 11 BTR Reductions, 5 BTR 
Additions for Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 19: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 10 BTR Reductions, Zero 
BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2002: 

Table 20: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 4 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR 
Additions for Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 21: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 11 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR 
Additions for Fiscal Year 2002: 

Table 22: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2002: 

Table 23: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2002: 

Table 24: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 25: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 26: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 27: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 28: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 29: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 30: Top 10 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 31: Top 8 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Table 32: Programs with Highest Combined Number of BTRs in 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 33: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2002 Programs: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Time Frame from the Start of Budget Development to the Start 
of Budget Execution: 

Figure 2: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net Loss, 
Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Figure 3: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR 
Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Figure 4: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net Loss, 
Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 2002: 

Figure 5: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR 
Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in Fiscal Year 2002: 

Abbreviations: 

BTR: below-threshold reprogramming: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

MDA: Missile Defense Agency: 

Letter September 17, 2004: 

The Honorable Ted Stevens: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Daniel Inouye: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Chairman:
The Honorable John P. Murtha: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

For fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $59 billion for defense 
research and development overall. Most of this amount was appropriated 
for research and development accounts for the military departments and 
Defense-wide, including the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense. While such funds are designated for 
hundreds of individual programs, Congress recognizes that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) needs to have some flexibility to adjust 
these funds for unexpected needs or for other valid reasons.[Footnote 
1] In fiscal year 2003, DOD adjusted several billion dollars worth of 
appropriated research and development funds for the military 
departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

DOD uses two key mechanisms to adjust the distribution of research and 
development funds--reprogramming and withholding. In this report, 
reprogramming refers to the shifting of funds by DOD within individual 
research and development accounts for purposes other than those 
contemplated when Congress appropriated the funds, such as to 
different programs. Congressional defense committees have established 
reprogramming guidelines, including setting dollar thresholds, that 
direct DOD to seek the prior approval of the committees before 
executing the movement of funds. In accordance with these guidelines, 
DOD regulations require that when the amount to be reprogrammed falls 
below the threshold, referred to as a below-threshold reprogramming 
(BTR), DOD generally does not need congressional committee approval. 
DOD regulations also provide that reprogrammings above the threshold do 
require prior congressional committee approval.[Footnote 2] A 
single reprogramming transaction adjusts at least two programs--the 
donor and the recipient.[Footnote 3] Often, several programs can be 
adjusted. In this report, we treat each adjustment as a BTR. Withheld 
funds are those funds appropriated to programs that DOD temporarily 
holds back for some period of time during the funds' period of 
availability before releasing them to research and development 
programs.[Footnote 4] Withheld funds are eventually either released to 
the designated programs or reprogrammed for other uses.

The appropriations committees have expressed concern about how DOD is 
reprogramming and withholding appropriated funds for research and 
development and that DOD has not kept Congress adequately informed 
about such actions. The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 
2004 DOD Appropriations Act (P. L. 108-87) mandated that GAO review 
DOD's movement and withholding of research and development 
funds.[Footnote 5] In response to the mandate, this report addresses 
(1) the quality of the information available about DOD's use of BTRs 
and withheld funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and (2) the amount and 
volume of BTRs and withheld funds for those years. The report also 
addresses recent congressional direction on reprogramming and 
withholding defense research and development funds.

We focused our review on the military departments--the Air Force, Army, 
and Navy (including the Marine Corps)--as well as MDA and the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense. To determine the quality of the information 
available about DOD's use of BTRs and withholds, we reviewed the DOD 
Financial Management Regulation and congressional reports; DOD internal 
reports and reports to Congress; financial reports; data collection 
systems; and financial records for all of the research and development 
programs from the Army, Air Force, Navy, MDA, and Office of the 
Secretary of Defense. In accordance with federal internal control 
standards, we have defined quality of information as measured by such 
factors as timeliness, accessibility, accuracy, and appropriateness of 
content.[Footnote 6] To determine the amount and volume of BTRs and 
withheld funds, we obtained available data from the Air Force, Army, 
Navy, and MDA's data collection systems on actual BTRs and withholds 
and developed a database containing data on each research and 
development program. We conducted multiple analyses about BTRs. We 
interviewed DOD policymakers and decision makers to gain an 
understanding of how various reports are prepared and to obtain 
information about BTRs and withholds. To gain insight into program-
level activities, we interviewed program managers and collected data 
from at least three selected research and development programs in each 
of the three military departments. We selected the programs on the 
basis of three criteria: a laboratory, a program with significant net 
reduction or addition of funds through BTRs, and a program with a 
relatively high number of both reductions and additions of funds 
through BTRs. We performed our review from November 2003 to July 2004 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
More details about our methodology are in appendix I.

Results in Brief: 

In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD provided to Congress information 
about BTRs that had several limitations, which reduced the quality of 
the information. For both years, DOD provided reports on these 
adjustments several months after Congress began the budgeting process 
for the next budget year. The reports were classified, which limited 
their distribution and accessibility. In addition, we found a number of 
discrepancies between the BTR data in the reports for both years and 
the information on actual BTRs in DOD organizations' data collection 
systems. For example, the Army, Navy, MDA, and the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense's BTR information was not based on actual BTR 
transactions; instead, the BTR information was derived by subtraction, 
versus totaling the actual value of individual BTRs. In addition, the 
Air Force, Army, and Navy's data on actual BTRs did not reconcile with 
their BTR information in the annual reports to Congress. Information 
about funds withheld from programs for some portion of their 
availability period was not reported to Congress. While better and more 
detailed information on BTRs and withholds is available within DOD, it 
is not readily accessible. DOD has no overall system or database for 
maintaining detailed information on BTRs and withhold data. Instead, 
the three military departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense use multiple, independent data collection systems that are not 
integrated with one another. These systems range widely in their level 
of automation, detail, and accessibility. The data needed to determine 
the amount and volume of BTRs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 were not 
readily available from some of the systems and some manual data 
collection was necessary.

We found that in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD organizations used 
BTRs and withholds frequently to adjust funding for research and 
development programs. In fiscal year 2003, the military departments and 
MDA used BTRs to reprogram about $1 billion of the $47 billion 
appropriated to them by Congress for research and development programs. 
This amounted to about 2 percent of their research and development 
funds. Of the programs affected, about half lost funds and more than 
one-fourth gained funds. On occasion, BTRs substantially altered, or 
redirected, a program's designated funding level. For example, the Air 
Force used BTRs to nearly double the funding for its KC-10S aircraft 
program and to reduce its C-130J aircraft program by 
81 percent.[Footnote 7] Of the programs affected, 76 percent had at 
least 1 BTR, and 14 percent had 6 or more. Among the most active 
examples, the Air Force and Navy executed a total of 20 BTRs on the 
Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program. Although we did not observe any 
instances in which DOD's use of BTRs exceeded the thresholds, our work 
was not conclusive on this point as we did not design steps to assess 
compliance with thresholds. In addition to BTRs, DOD withheld about 
$2.8 billion in fiscal year 2003. Officials cited several reasons for 
implementing BTRs and withholds, including accommodating unanticipated 
changes or events, implementing congressional mandates, and, in the 
case of some withholds, controlling the execution of individual 
programs.

Congress has continued to express concerns over how DOD is adjusting 
appropriated funds for research and development programs and over the 
adequacy of information from DOD about such actions. In the Conference 
Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 DOD Appropriations Act 
(P. L. 108-287), Congress revised the reprogramming guidelines, 
including new direction on reprogramming and withholding appropriated 
funds for research and development programs.[Footnote 8] Specifically, 
Congress directed DOD to report on the adequacy and use of DOD's 
current reprogramming and withholding practices, to work with 
congressional defense committees on ways to provide timely and accurate 
data on reprogrammings and withholds; to increase the reporting of 
reprogramming information on a monthly basis, if not more frequently; 
and to transmit the data electronically, if feasible, to congressional 
defense committees. The direction to DOD to work with the committees 
provides an excellent opportunity for DOD to make changes that can 
serve mutual needs for information on reprogramming and withholds.

DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress provide BTR 
information of limited quality but noted that the issues we raised in 
this regard can be addressed and that DOD was open to suggestions and 
will gladly work with committee staff to satisfy their needs. DOD also 
offered suggestions to clarify language on certain issues and to put 
its use of BTRs more in context. DOD's willingness to work with 
Congress is a constructive response that can lead to reporting changes 
that can meet the needs of both Congress and DOD. We have made 
appropriate clarifications of language and overall BTR context.

Background: 

The funds that DOD managers need for their research and development 
programs first must be considered by DOD for inclusion in the 
President's Budget. If the President includes the funds in the budget 
he transmits to Congress, then Congress considers the request. If 
Congress approves the request, it appropriates funds for the programs 
in the annual DOD appropriations act that is signed into law by the 
President. Three years can lapse from the time a program manager begins 
formulating a research and development program budget request to the 
time that funds are included in an appropriations act that is signed 
into law and designated for the program in the accompanying conference 
report. Figure 1 shows a typical scenario for the research and 
development program budgeting process.

Figure 1: Time Frame from the Start of Budget Development to the Start 
of Budget Execution: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: In some years, Congress does not complete budget action by 
October 1 for the start of the new fiscal year. In such cases, one or 
more continuing resolutions are typically enacted, enabling the 
military departments and defense agencies to continue with program 
activities.

[End of figure]

The resulting appropriations act typically specifies a lump sum for 
several different accounts, including the research, development, test 
and evaluation appropriation account of each of the military 
departments as well as separately for DOD-wide research and development 
activities.

The account for research, development, test, and evaluation (referred 
to in this report as research and development) is further broken down 
into budget activities, such as basic research and advanced technology 
development. Each budget activity is then subdivided into program 
elements, which we refer to as programs in this report. The conference 
report that accompanies the appropriations act lists the amounts 
Congress designated for each activity and program. An individual 
program can be further subdivided by DOD into projects or other 
activities. Following the annual enactment of the appropriations act, 
the Office of Management and Budget apportions the funds and DOD allots 
the funds and--except for those being withheld--makes the money 
available or releases it to managers for executing programs. Managers 
generally have 2 years to obligate research and development funds 
before the funds expire.

By the time the budget approval process is complete and the funds are 
made available, several things can be said about the appropriated 
amounts for the individual program: (1) they represent decisions by 
Congress to approve programs as requested, create new programs, and 
adjust the requested amounts for others; (2) because of the elapsed 
time from the point the program manager began formulating the budget 
request until enactment of the appropriations act, situations may have 
changed that cause a misalignment between the approved funds and the 
actual status of the program; (3) the inherent unknowns in research and 
development will result in some programs not being executed as 
contemplated by the budget; and (4) unanticipated events will develop 
during the execution year that were not anticipated in the budget.

It is for these and other reasons that Congress recognizes that DOD 
needs some flexibility to adjust research and development funds after 
they are appropriated. A primary vehicle for exercising this 
flexibility is reprogramming. DOD can also withhold funds from programs 
prior to reprogramming or releasing the funds. The Air Force and MDA 
restrict the authority to reprogram or withhold funds to their 
headquarters staffs, while the Army and Navy grant their subordinate 
commands and program executive offices this authority.

This report defines withheld funds--or a withhold--as appropriated DOD 
research and development funds that are not released by DOD to a 
designated program for part of the 2-year period of availability of 
those funds. Prior to being released for execution, funds may be 
withheld by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the headquarters 
for the military departments and MDA. DOD withholds funds for a variety 
reasons and does not seek prior congressional approval for these 
transactions. While funds are withheld, the funds are still designated 
for the program but not yet released to that program.

In contrast, reprogramming of appropriated funds is a mechanism for 
which DOD has established a formal process for internal review and 
approval and, when necessary, congressional notification and 
approval.[Footnote 9] For fiscal year 2003, to implement congressional 
guidelines, DOD's reprogramming policy required prior written approval 
from congressional defense committees for any research and development 
reprogramming increase of at least $10 million to an existing program 
and for any decrease of at least $10 million or 20 percent of the 
program's appropriation, whichever was greater. In fiscal year 2002, 
the threshold for increases was $4 million, and, for decreases, 
$4 million or 20 percent of the appropriated amount, whichever was 
greater. These thresholds are applied at the program level of the 
budget. According to DOD's Financial Management Regulation and 
congressional guidelines, DOD generally does not have to seek prior 
congressional approval for reprogrammings that do not exceed the 
threshold; hence, these are BTRs. The threshold applies to both 
individual BTRs and the cumulative amount of BTRs in each program 
element. Thus, multiple BTRs for the same program must not exceed the 
threshold in total. If congressional committees have denied a 
reprogramming request above the threshold, DOD policy prohibits the use 
of a series of BTRs to achieve the denied request.

DOD submits a number of reports to Congress each year to convey 
appropriations-related information for each research and development 
program. One of these reports, the DD 1416, is intended to capture all 
changes made to the amount designated by Congress for a program, 
including BTRs. The DD 1416 is Congress's primary vehicle for 
information about BTR changes by DOD to the amount designated for a 
program. The annual DD 1416 report for Congress covers the entire 
fiscal year ending September 30. A DOD regulation requires that the 
annual report for Congress be sent by DOD components to the DOD 
Comptroller within 30 working days after September 30 for review prior 
to submission to Congress. However, the DOD regulation does not specify 
a date by which the report must be sent to Congress.

DOD Collects and Provides BTR Information of Limited Quality for 
Congress and Does Not Provide Congress with Withhold Data: 

DOD's primary vehicle for reporting BTRs to Congress, the DD 1416 
report, has several limitations that reduce the report's quality as a 
source of information. DOD provided the DD 1416s for fiscal years 2002 
and 2003 to Congress several months after Congress began considering 
the new budget. Because the reports contained classified information, 
their distribution was limited. We found a number of discrepancies 
between the BTR data in the DD 1416s and the information on actual BTRs 
in DOD organizations' data collection systems. Further, the reports did 
not include detailed information about BTR activity on a program-by-
program level, such as whether programs gained or lost funding, and 
provided no withhold data.

Data on actual BTRs in DOD are not centralized but rather are contained 
in the individual data collection systems maintained by the military 
departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. These 
systems range widely in their level of automation, detail, and 
accessibility. The data needed to determine the amount and volume of 
BTRs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 were not readily available from 
some of the systems and some manual data collection was necessary. 
Information on actual BTRs did not always reconcile with the data 
contained in the DD 1416 report to Congress.

DOD's Reports to Congress Have Shortfalls: 

For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, DOD delivered the DD 1416s to Congress 
several months after Congress began deliberations on the new budget 
year. Each report was dated in April the year following the end of the 
fiscal year, and was not delivered to Congress until May, according to 
a DOD official. Thus, the report covering the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002, was sent to Congress in May 2003, and the report 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, was sent to Congress in 
May 2004. It appears that until the reports were received, 
congressional committees were less informed about the funds that were 
moved from one research and development program to another when 
considering program budgets for the following year. In addition, the 
reports were classified because of the sensitive nature of some of the 
DOD programs. Classification restricts the ease with which reports can 
be accessed by and circulated among congressional staff.

The data contained in the DD 1416s to Congress for both years had 
several limitations. The reports listed a net amount intended to 
represent all BTRs for each program--after all BTR increases and 
decreases were calculated--that occurred in the fiscal year. We found 
that, except for the Air Force, the net amounts were not based on 
actual BTR transactions. Rather, the net amounts in the DD 1416s were 
derived by subtracting all adjustments from the balance of programs' 
funds, whether the adjustments were BTRs or not. In addition, when we 
compared BTR information in the DD 1416s with the BTR data provided to 
us by the DOD organizations, we found that, except for MDA, the 
information did not match. The military departments were not able to 
reconcile the data. In addition, the reports did not contain detailed, 
continuous data on BTRs. For example, the DD 1416s did not contain the 
total number of BTRs for each program, whether funds were added or 
reduced, reasons for BTRs, or the donor or recipient programs. Thus, 
the reports could not be used to understand what changes occurred in an 
individual program during the year of execution.

Information about funds withheld from programs for some portion of 
their availability period was not reported to Congress.

Data Collection Systems and Quality of Source Data Vary Widely: 

DOD does not have a single, centralized, integrated data collection 
system to record, manage, and report on funds that have been 
reprogrammed through BTRs or withheld. Rather, such information is 
maintained by the individual organizations with responsibility for 
managing the funds appropriated for each program. To satisfy the 
requirements of the mandate, we developed a single database that 
contains information on research and development funds reprogrammed and 
withheld in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 from the three military 
departments and MDA.

These organizations employ different systems to track and monitor BTRs. 
Most but not all systems are centralized, and some organizations have 
separate systems for recording funds withheld from programs. The 
quality of BTR and withhold data varied across the three military 
departments and MDA. We found several features of data collection 
systems that appeared to be important to generating quality 
information. These included whether: a centralized record and approval 
system was in place to track changes within programs; reasons for 
changes were recorded; data on both donors and recipients were 
included; details on transactions were easily retrievable; and data 
reconciled with amounts reported in the DD 1416 report. Table 1 
summarizes these features for the individual data collection systems.

Table 1: Summary of Features of Data Collection Systems for Military 
Departments and MDA: 

Features: Centralized system for tracking individual BTRs; 
Army: Yes; 
Navy: No; 
Air Force: Yes; 
MDA: Yes.

Features: Reasons for BTRs are recorded; 
Army: No; 
Navy: No; 
Air Force: Yes; 
MDA: Yes.

Features: Donors and recipients are recorded; 
Army: No; 
Navy: Yes; 
Air Force: Yes; 
MDA: Yes.

Features: Detailed data are easily retrievable; 
Army: No; 
Navy: No; 
Air Force: Yes; 
MDA: Yes.

Features: Data reconcile with DD 1416; 
Army: No; 
Navy: No; 
Air Force: No; 
MDA: Yes. 

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: We did not review the Office of the Secretary of Defense's data 
collection system because it was still being implemented.

[End of table]

Details on each of the systems follow.

Army: 

The Army uses DOD's computerized Program Budget Accounting System to 
record and track BTRs. The accounting system is accessible at Army 
headquarters and at all of the subordinate organizations. Although the 
system provides the net dollar amount of the BTRs for each program and 
project, the system has several limitations. For example, the system 
does not show the details of each BTR transaction, such as the donors 
and recipients of each transaction or the purpose. To identify the 
donors and recipients, the Army must resort to paper records produced 
by the system for each transaction. Furthermore, the system does not 
have the capability to electronically retrieve information about prior 
individual BTRs because the system only shows the cumulative net BTR 
balances. Prior individual balances are overwritten after 10 days. Once 
10 days have passed, if budget officials do not print a record, the 
opportunity to save that data is lost. If paper records were printed, 
budget officials can manually assemble and analyze the records about 
individual BTR transactions. We found that nearly 41 percent of the 
Army's BTR data contained in the DD 1416 for Army programs in fiscal 
year 2002 did not match the BTR data contained in the paper records 
produced by the Army's data collection system, and nearly 46 percent of 
DD 1416 BTR data did not match for fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 10]

With regard to withholds, the data collection system provides some 
data on funds withheld from Army programs by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, Army headquarters, and subordinate organizations, 
but the system only shows the cumulative amount of the withheld funds, 
not the information for each BTR and withhold. Army Budget Office 
officials said a report is produced with this information each month. 
Also, a user of the system can, at any time, print a report that shows 
cumulative withhold amounts up to the date of printing. However, as 
with the individual BTR data, the individual withhold data gets 
overwritten after 10 days and cannot be retrieved afterward. Thus, the 
Army has to rely on paper-based reports to form an audit trail.

Navy: 

The Navy utilizes multiple systems to manage appropriated funds. 
Separate systems are used at the headquarters level to record and track 
BTRs and withholds. Another is used to allocate statutory obligations. 
Multiple subordinate organizations have developed similar systems to 
record the BTRs and withholds that they authorize. The Navy required 
about 10 weeks to gather information about BTRs and withholds from 
subordinate organizations and to consolidate that information with data 
maintained by headquarters.

The Navy data collection systems identified all funding level changes, 
as well as the programs from which funds were taken and added. The 
systems did not identify the reasons for these changes. The Navy had 
detailed records identifying the specific programs that were subject to 
BTRs and withholds, including the donor or recipient for each BTR 
transaction, but the reasons for reprogramming transactions were not 
available. While most of the totals provided to us matched those 
included in the DD 1416, there were discrepancies for some Navy 
programs.

Air Force: 

The Air Force uses a single, computer-based, data collection system to 
manage adjustments to the funding level for each program. This system 
was designed and is maintained by a contractor. The system is used to 
record, track, and manage all changes to Air Force research and 
development funding levels for headquarters and subordinate 
organizations, including system program offices and laboratories. The 
system maintains multiple years of information on research and 
development funds withheld and reprogrammed. For most reprogrammings, 
the system records the purpose of the changes and identifies the 
programs from which funds were decreased and increased. The system is 
updated about once a month and available principally to those in the 
headquarters management unit. The system maintains data for 
multiple years, and the data are easily retrievable. The Air Force had 
detailed electronic records identifying the specific programs that were 
subject to BTRs and withholds, including the donor or recipient for 
each BTR transaction and the reasons for most of them. The information 
on BTRs and withholds was not available below the program level, such 
as for a project within a program. Some of the BTR data did not match 
the data contained in the DD 1416s for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Air 
Force officials attributed the discrepancies to adjustments that had 
been made to BTRs in its management information system and said the 
problem has been corrected for fiscal year 2004.

MDA: 

MDA utilizes a single, computerized data collection system to record 
and manage changes to program funding levels. The system records BTRs 
and withholds for all of its programs, including the donors and 
recipients for BTRs and the reasons for them. The system operates on a 
real-time basis and is available to all participants from the 
headquarters unit to the individual program offices. The system 
maintains multiple years of data, and the data are electronically 
retrievable. MDA's BTR data reconciled with the DD 1416s for fiscal 
year 2003.

Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has data collection systems for 
tracking BTRs and withholds for the research and development programs 
it manages, but these systems were not available to record BTRs for 
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 appropriations. Consequently, the office did 
not provide records of individual BTRs. Officials managing these 
programs stated that a data collection system to record and manage 
appropriated funds would be helpful, and they are working to improve 
the system they installed for fiscal year 2004.

BTRs and Withholds Used Frequently to Adjust or Control Programs' 
Funding Levels: 

We found that the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA executed 1,927 BTRs in 
fiscal year 2003, totaling about $1 billion. This amounted to about 2 
percent of their research and development funds. These transactions 
either reduced or added to most research and development programs' 
funding. Although we did not observe any instances in which DOD's use 
of BTRs exceeded the thresholds, our work was not conclusive on this 
point as we did not design steps to assess compliance with thresholds. 
Of the programs affected by BTRs, 48 percent experienced a net loss in 
funding after accounting for additions and reductions. The effect of 
BTRs on some programs was so significant that the programs were 
essentially redirected. With regard to withheld funds, the Army, Navy, 
and Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense withheld a 
total of about $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2003. The Office of the 
Secretary of Defense withheld 56 percent of the funds, while the 
military departments withheld the rest. MDA did not report withhold 
data except for those funds withheld from MDA by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense. Because DOD organizations have learned to expect 
a volume of changes each year--although the specifics are 
unpredictable--they have developed strategies to anticipate possible 
DOD decisions to reprogram or withhold portions of their funding. 
Officials noted that one strategy involves increasing programs' budget 
requests to cover anticipated BTRs and withholds so programs can 
continue to perform at planned levels. Officials from the military 
departments, MDA, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense cited 
several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds, including 
accommodating unanticipated changes or events, implementing 
congressional mandates, and, in the case of some withholds, controlling 
the execution of individual programs.

Wide Use of BTRs and Withholds: 

In fiscal year 2003, DOD reprogrammed about $1.7 billion in research 
and development funds. About $1 billion of this money--59 percent--was 
reprogrammed by the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA using BTRs.[Footnote 
11] This amounted to about 2 percent of the research and development 
funds for these organizations. The number and amount of BTRs executed 
in fiscal year 2003 varied by organization, as shown in table 2. 
Additional details for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are contained in the 
appendixes.

Table 2: Number and Value of BTRs for Fiscal Year 2003 Research and 
Development Programs: 

Organization: Air Force; 
Number of programs: 174; 
Number of BTRs: 286; 
Total value of BTRs: $211,236,000.

Organization: Army; 
Number of programs: 165; 
Number of BTRs: 312; 
Total value of BTRs: $105,652,000.

Organization: Navy; 
Number of programs: 194; 
Number of BTRs: 932; 
Total value of BTRs: $330,316,000.

Organization: MDA; 
Number of programs: 12; 
Number of BTRs: 397; 
Total value of BTRs: $335,870,000.

Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense; 
Number of programs: 64; 
Number of BTRs: N/A[A]; 
Total value of BTRs: N/A[A].

Total; 
Number of programs: 609; 
Number of BTRs: 1,927; 
Total value of BTRs: $983,074,000.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(data); GAO (analysis).

[A] Data were not available because the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense said its system for collecting BTR information for fiscal year 
2003 was not yet implemented.

[End of table]

MDA, which has a total of 12 programs (or 2 percent of the total), 
accounted for 34 percent of the total dollar value of BTRs and 
21 percent of the total number of BTRs. MDA programs generally have 
larger research and development budgets than other DOD organizations' 
programs. MDA programs in fiscal year 2003 ranged in size from about 
$7.5 million to about $3.2 billion, while the smallest program among 
the three military departments amounted to $313,000 and the largest was 
about $1.7 billion. Additional details are shown in appendix III, table 
9.

Of the programs that experienced BTRs in fiscal year 2003, 48 percent 
had BTRs that resulted in a net loss of funds, while 28 percent had 
BTRs that resulted in a net gain, as figure 2 shows. The percentage of 
programs gaining and losing funds through BTRs varied across 
organizations. These percentages--and the specific programs involved--
also varied from year to year. (App. III, fig. 5, shows percentages for 
fiscal year 2002.): 

Figure 2: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net Loss, 
Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

[End of figure]

Some programs lost or gained such a substantial portion of their 
designated funding that they were essentially redirected. For example, 
in fiscal year 2003, the Air Force's KC-10S aircraft program was 
increased by 92 percent through four BTRs. In contrast, the Air Force's 
C-130J aircraft program was reduced by 81 percent through four BTRs. 
More details on these programs are shown in table 3.

Table 3: Effect of BTRs on Funding Levels for Two Air Force Programs in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Program: KC-10S; 
Original designated funding level: $10,506,000; 
BTR amount: $9,999,000; 
Number of BTRs: 4; 
Other reductions[A]: -$356,000; 
Revised funding level: $20,149,000; 
Percentage change: 92%.

Program: C-130J Program; 
Original designated funding level: 10,000,000; 
BTR amount: -$7,611,000; 
Number of BTRs: 4; 
Other reductions[A]: -$499,000; 
Revised funding level: $1,890,000; 
Percentage change: -81%.

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

[A] Other reductions include rescissions (or congressionally directed 
actions) and above-threshold reprogrammings.

[End of table]

The five programs in each of the three military departments and MDA 
with the largest funding reductions and additions through BTRs during 
fiscal year 2003 are shown in tables 4 and 5.[Footnote 12] Additional 
details are shown in appendix III, tables 10-17. Again, patterns vary 
from year to year, as a comparison of these appendix tables shows.

Table 4: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Reductions in Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Organization: Air Force: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development; 
Reductions: -$24,177,000.

Organization: Air Force: C-130 Airlift Squadrons; 
Reductions: -$21,037,000.

Organization: Air Force: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering 
and Manufacturing Development; 
Reductions: -$17,957,000.

Organization: Air Force: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 
Reductions: -$17,770,000.

Organization: Air Force: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 
Reductions: -$ 10,833,000.

Organization: Army: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering 
Development; 
Reductions: -$8,677,000.

Organization: Army: Support of Operational Testing; 
Reductions: -$7,822,000.

Organization: Army: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities; 
Reductions: -$6,127,000.

Organization: Army: Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment; 
Reductions: -$ 5,420,000.

Organization: Army: Artillery Systems-Demonstration/Validation; 
Reductions: -$5,199,000.

Organization: Navy: V-22A; 
Reductions: -$21,492,000.

Organization: Navy: Power Projection Advanced Technology; 
Reductions: -$ 11,806,000.

Organization: Navy: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 
Reductions: -$9,531,000.

Organization: Navy: Guided Missile Submarine Design; 
Reductions: -$9,402,000.

Organization: Navy: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 
Reductions: -$9,175,000.

Organization: MDA: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 
Reductions: -$ 121,249,000.

Organization: MDA: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater 
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
Reductions: -$ 61,318,000.

Organization: MDA: Midcourse Defense Segment; 
Reductions: -$50,273,000.

Organization: MDA: Sensors; 
Reductions: -$31,497,000.

Organization: MDA: Boost Defense Segment; 
Reductions: -$26,119,000.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Notes: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

Table 5: Top 5 Dollar-Value Programs: BTR Additions in Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Organization: Air Force: C-5 Airlift Squadrons; 
Additions: $11,000,000.

Organization: Air Force: KC-10S; 
Additions: $10,220,000.

Organization: Air Force: Initial Operational Test & Evaluation; 
Additions: $10,153,000.

Organization: Air Force: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 
Additions: $9,898,000.

Organization: Air Force: Advanced Weapons Technology; 
Additions: $9,500,000.

Organization: Army: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology; 
Additions: $9,999,000.

Organization: Army: Joint Simulation System Core Program; 
Additions: $9,555,000.

Organization: Army: Technical Information Activities; 
Additions: $8,919,000.

Organization: Army: Advanced Tank Armament System; 
Additions: $6,004,000.

Organization: Army: Army Evaluation Center; 
Additions: $5,903,000.

Organization: Navy: Power Projection Advanced Technology; 
Additions: $18,018,000.

Organization: Navy: Guided Missile Submarine Design; 
Additions: $13,194,000.

Organization: Navy: Special Processes; 
Additions: $12,800,000.

Organization: Navy: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; 
Ship and Aircraft Support; 
Additions: $10,347,000.

Organization: Navy: Other Helicopter Development; 
Additions: $10,199,000.

Organization: MDA: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 
Additions: $126,078,000.

Organization: MDA: Midcourse Defense Segment; 
Additions: $60,281,000.

Organization: MDA: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater 
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
Additions: $60,026,000.

Organization: MDA: Sensors; 
Additions: $33,163,000.

Organization: MDA: Boost Defense Segment; 
Additions: $18,447,000.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); 
GAO (analysis).

Notes: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

Funds taken from programs through BTRs may be applied to multiple other 
programs. For example, in 2003, the Air Force and the Navy reprogrammed 
a combined total of about $29 million from the Joint Strike Fighter to 
15 other programs. Additional details are provided in appendix III, 
tables 18-21. Similarly, the Army reprogrammed almost $8.7 million 
from the Logistics and Engineer Equipment Program to 12 other programs 
in fiscal year 2003, and the Navy reprogrammed almost $21.5 million 
from the V-22 aircraft program to 8 other programs.

Overall, 76 percent of all research and development programs had at 
least 1 BTR, and 54 percent had more than 1, and 14 percent had 6 or 
more in fiscal year 2003, as table 6 shows. The Navy and MDA had more 
programs with substantial numbers of BTRs than did the Air Force or 
the Army. Specifically, 27 percent of Navy programs and 66 percent of 
MDA programs had 6 to 35 or more BTRs. Only 3 percent and 6 percent of 
Air Force and Army programs, respectively, had this many. Additional 
details are shown in table 7 and in appendix III, tables 22 and 23.

Table 6: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Organization: Air Force; 
0 BTRs: 29%; 
1 BTR: 30%; 
2-5 BTRs: 38%; 
6-15 BTRs: 3%; 
16-35 or more: 0%; 
Total percentage: 100%.

Organization: Army; 
0 BTRs: 28%; 
1 BTR: 25%; 
2-5 BTRs: 40%; 
6-15 BTRs: 6%; 
16-35 or more: 0%; 
Total percentage: 99%[A].

Organization: Navy; 
0 BTRs: 14%; 
1 BTR: 14%; 
2-5 BTRs: 44%; 
6-15 BTRs: 23%; 
16-35 or more: 5%; 
Total percentage: 100%.

Organization: MDA; 
0 BTRs: 17%; 
1 BTR: 0%; 
2-5 BTRs: 17%; 
6-15 BTRs: 17%; 
16-35 or more: 50%; 
Total percentage: 101%[A].

Total; 
0 BTRs: 23%; 
1 BTR: 22%; 
2-5 BTRs: 40%; 
6-15 BTRs: 11%; 
16-35 or more: 3%; 
Total percentage: 99%[A].

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Notes: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

[A] Total percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

[End of table]

Table 7: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Organization: Air Force; 
0: 51; 
1: 52; 
2: 27; 
3: 24; 
4: 10; 
5: 5; 
6-10: 3; 
11-15: 2; 
16-20: 0; 
21-25: 0; 
26-30: 0; 
31-35: 0; 
35 or more: 0; 
Total: 174.

Organization: Army; 
0: 47; 
1: 42; 
2: 29; 
3: 23; 
4: 7; 
5: 7; 
6-10: 8; 
11-15: 2; 
16-20: 0; 
21-25: 0; 
26-30: 0; 
31-35: 0; 
35 or more: 0; 
Total: 165.

Organization: Navy; 
0: 28; 
1: 28; 
2: 35; 
3: 23; 
4: 21; 
5: 6; 
6-10: 29; 
11-15: 15; 
16-20: 6; 
21-25: 1; 
26-30: 1; 
31-35: 0; 
35 or more: 1; 
Total: 194.

Organization: MDA; 
0: 2; 
1: 0; 
2: 1; 
3: 1; 
4: 0; 
5: 0; 
6-10: 1; 
11-15: 1; 
16-20: 0; 
21-25: 2; 
26-30: 1; 
31-35: 0; 
35 or more: 3; 
Total: 12.

Organization: Total; 
0: 128; 
1: 122; 
2: 92; 
3: 71; 
4: 38; 
5: 18; 
6-10: 41; 
11-15: 20; 
16-20: 6; 
21-25: 3; 
26-30: 2; 
31-35: 0; 
35 or more: 4; 
Total: 545.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

[End of table]

As figure 3 shows, 42 percent of programs had both BTR reductions and 
additions in fiscal year 2003. The percent of such programs ranged 
from 28 percent in the Army to 80 percent in MDA. Additional details 
are shown in appendix III, figure 5 and tables 24-32. Patterns vary 
from year to year, as those tables show.

Figure 3: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR 
Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in Fiscal Year 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

[End of figure]

In fiscal year 2003, the DOD organizations we reviewed withheld a total 
of about $2.8 billion in appropriated funds. The amounts withheld 
varied widely, as table 8 shows. MDA officials said that while MDA 
does not always release all appropriated funds immediately to its 
programs, MDA does not consider such non-releases to be withholds and 
did not provide this data to us. The Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, which withheld substantially more than other organizations, 
accounted for 56 percent of the total amount withheld. Withholds 
amounts for fiscal year 2002 are in appendix III, table 33.

Table 8: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2003 Programs: 

Organization: Air Force; 
Value of withholds: $149,342,000.

Organization: Army; 
Value of withholds: $475,710,000.

Organization: Navy; 
Value of withholds: $626,055,000.

Organization: MDA; 
Value of withholds: N/A[A].

Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense; 
Value of withholds: $1,580,443,000.

Organization: Total; 
Value of withholds: $2,831,550,000.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (data); GAO (analysis).

[A] MDA officials said that they did not withhold funds from MDA 
programs. 

[End of table]

DOD's Rationale for BTRs and Withholds: 

The military departments, MDA, and Office of the Secretary of Defense 
officials cited several reasons for implementing BTRs and withholds. 
Generally, the reasons involved accommodating unanticipated changes or 
events, implementing congressional mandates, and, in the case of some 
withholds, controlling the execution of individual programs.

Unanticipated Changes or Events: 

Officials from each of the DOD organizations noted that because they 
need to estimate research and development program needs and budgets 2 
or more years in advance of receiving appropriated funds, by the time 
the funds are actually received, factors upon which estimates are based 
may have changed and unforeseen events may have occurred. Officials 
also noted that current levels of flexibility are too limited given the 
adjustments that may be needed to deal with such changes. For example, 
testing on a program may have been accelerated or delayed; new 
requirements may have arisen; design changes may be required; a 
program's costs may have increased; new technologies may have emerged; 
priorities may have shifted; and unexpected events, such as operations 
in Afghanistan and Iraq, may have occurred. Consequently, funding 
changes may be needed after funds are appropriated.

Military department and MDA officials stated that having the 
flexibility to adjust funding in such circumstances allows them to make 
better use of available funds by fixing a problem promptly, taking 
advantage of an opportunity, or responding to an unexpected 
contingency. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the Air Force 
reprogrammed almost $10 million to the KC-10S program to address 
unexpected cost increases in the cockpit modernization program. 
According to Air Force officials, obtaining these funds when they were 
needed avoided contract and schedule issues that would have been 
detrimental to the program. Ultimately in this case, the cockpit 
modernization program continued to experience unexpected cost increases 
and schedule slippages, and the Air Force later cancelled the program. 
In another example, Army officials stated that the presence of 
improvised explosive devices in the Iraq conflict has made explosive 
disposal robots more important than the budget preparation process 
anticipated 3 years ago. They noted that the Army is using some of its 
BTR flexibility to address this higher priority need.

Military department officials told us they also withhold funds for 
unexpected events or opportunities that may arise during the fiscal 
year. These withheld funds are then available for reprogramming as 
needed. For example, the Army withheld and subsequently reprogrammed 
about 2.3 percent of funds from most programs in fiscal year 2003 to 
cover expenses of ongoing operations. Officials said that this is the 
only year the Army instituted a general withhold on its programs. The 
Navy withheld 2 percent from most research and development programs in 
fiscal year 2002 and 1 percent in fiscal year 2003. These funds were 
used to address unexpected contingencies and emerging technological 
requirements. While Air Force officials stated that they do not 
routinely withhold funds from all programs, the Air Force Research 
Laboratory withholds about 5 percent from all laboratory programs to 
provide for its headquarters unit. The Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, Research and Development, withholds and subsequently 
reprograms as necessary about 10 percent from the research and 
development programs it manages to provide for contingencies and to 
cover reductions resulting from statutory requirements.

Implementing Statutory Obligations: 

Military department officials also use withholds to fund statutory 
obligations. For example, DOD is required by statute to set aside 
research and development funds for small business concerns to conduct 
research projects that have the potential for commercialization. Two 
programs are supported with these funds: the Small Business Innovation 
Research Program, which stimulates early-stage research and development 
by small business concerns; and the Small Business Technology Transfer 
Program, which funds cooperative research and development projects 
involving a small business and a research institution. The military 
departments and MDA vary in the way they set aside the funds for these 
statutory obligations. This variation provides these organizations with 
additional flexibility in adjusting appropriated research and 
development funds. In 2003, the Army and the Navy exempted some 
intelligence programs from the Small Business Innovation Research and 
the Small Business Technology Transfer assessments. They then withheld 
the funds needed to cover these assessments from the remaining 
programs. Air Force officials informed us that they reallocate the 
assessments during the fiscal year to adjust funds available to 
programs. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the Air Force used a BTR to 
restore the Small Business Innovation Research assessment it had 
earlier made against the B-2 program, to provide the program with more 
money. Other programs were assessed a higher amount to make up the 
difference.

In addition, military department officials use withholds to allocate 
rescissions and reductions that are included in appropriations acts and 
cancel appropriated funding.[Footnote 13] Rescissions or reductions may 
apply specifically to some or all research and development accounts or 
across-the-board to other appropriations accounts. For example, for 
fiscal year 2003, because of a change in projected inflation estimates, 
Congress directed a reduction of $1.4 billion across all operations and 
maintenance, procurement, and research and development appropriations 
accounts, with the reduction to be applied proportionally to each 
program within each account.[Footnote 14] To implement this reduction, 
the Air Force and Navy used withholds to reduce research and 
development programs' appropriations by $105.6 million and 
$78.2 million, respectively.

Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense noted that they 
withhold funds from research and development programs to make certain 
programs achieve a particular milestone or other event and to assure 
that additional funds appropriated by Congress beyond the program's 
requested budget reach the intended program and can be used 
effectively. For example, the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
sometimes withholds a portion of a program's appropriation to assure 
the program completes a report, accomplishes a test, or complies in 
some other way with headquarters' direction. Often, these withholds are 
in response to a congressional directive contained in authorization or 
appropriations report language. Funds are usually released once the 
program has accomplished the required task. Each year, Congress adds 
funds to certain programs' requested budgets. Officials observed that 
there is often some uncertainty as to which program Congress intended 
these funds to benefit and whether those programs can effectively use 
the funds. Consequently, they withhold the funds until they can 
determine which programs are to receive the additional funds and to 
ensure that those programs can use the money effectively before 
releasing the funds. In fiscal year 2002, these types of withholds 
represented a large percentage of the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense withholds, amounting to nearly $2.7 billion. However, the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense has subsequently reduced its 
withholds of congressional additions, while some of the departments 
have increased theirs.

Managers Have Adopted Strategies for Anticipating BTRs and Withholds: 

DOD, military department, MDA, and program officials informed us that 
while they can expect with some confidence that reprogramming and 
withholds will occur during the budget year, they cannot predict the 
timing or amount. In anticipation of these funding adjustments, program 
and military department officials noted that program budgets are often 
increased during preparation. While this does not appear to be an 
unusual practice, we did not assess its extent or magnitude. This 
practice allows programs to perform at planned levels if and when these 
actions actually occur. Program officials stated that in cases for 
which anticipated reductions were underestimated, schedules are 
sometimes slowed down in response to BTRs and withholds. For example, 
tests or other scheduled events may be delayed until withheld funds are 
released or the funds lost through BTRs are paid back. If funds are not 
paid back, program schedules may be permanently slowed. For example, 
according to Air Force officials, when the Air Force reduced the C-130 
avionics modernization program's by $35 million in fiscal year 2003, 
the program manager extended the development program and renegotiated 
the development contract.

Funds also may be informally held back after they have been released to 
programs. That is, program managers may be told not to spend some 
portion of the funds that have actually been released to their programs 
in order to provide funds for later reprogramming. This differs from 
withholds because withholds can only be implemented before funds are 
released to programs. The informal holding back of funds occurs after 
funds are released, is done verbally, and is not recorded. This 
essentially creates a pool of reserved funds that can be used to meet 
anticipated but not fully identified requirements. MDA officials 
informed us that the Office of the Secretary of Defense requires them 
to informally hold millions of dollars each year in anticipation of the 
annual omnibus reprogramming. Omnibus reprogramming is a compilation of 
several above-threshold reprogrammings sent to Congress late in the 
fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense required MDA to informally hold about $23 million 
and later used about $6 million of this money for omnibus 
reprogramming. The remaining funds were then released to MDA.

Recent Congressional Direction for Better Information: 

Congress has continued to express concerns about how DOD is adjusting 
funding for research and development programs and about the adequacy of 
information from DOD about such actions. Congress recently revised its 
guidance to DOD on reprogramming and withholding appropriated funds for 
research and development and on keeping Congress adequately informed 
about such actions.

For fiscal year 2004, congressional guidelines had tightened the 
threshold for decreases to $10 million or 20 percent of the program's 
appropriation, whichever was less, rather than the greater provision of 
fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 15] For fiscal year 2005, Congress 
maintained the tightened thresholds of 2004 and added new direction on 
the reprogramming and withholding of appropriated funds for research 
and development programs.

Furthermore, Congress directed DOD to provide better information on 
reprogrammings and withholds both in the short-and the long-term. 
Specifically, Congress directed: 

* the Secretary of Defense to provide data by January 31, 2005, on the 
adequacy and use of the DOD's current reprogramming and withholding 
practices;

* DOD to work with congressional defense committees on a method 
providing timely and accurate data on reprogramming activity (both 
below and above the threshold) and the application of statutory and 
administrative withholds;

* that reprogramming data be available on a least a monthly basis, 
potentially in conjunction with DOD's DD 1002 reports; and: 

* that DOD should transmit the data electronically, if feasible, to 
congressional defense committees.[Footnote 16]

Conclusions: 

DOD has a legitimate need for a degree of flexibility to adjust the 
funding levels designated for individual research and development 
programs. Congress has a legitimate need to maintain oversight over the 
funds it has appropriated. Ideally, both sets of needs can be met 
through a combination of approval thresholds for adjusting funding 
levels and reports on how funds have been adjusted. However, DOD has 
not provided information of sufficient quality and detail to Congress 
on how it adjusts appropriated research and development funds through 
BTRs and withholds. In reaction, Congress has tightened thresholds to a 
level of flexibility DOD officials believe is too limited.

In passing the fiscal year 2005 DOD Appropriations Act, Congress has 
directed DOD to take several actions to improve the information it 
provides to Congress regarding DOD's use of reprogrammings and 
withholds. The direction for DOD and the congressional defense 
committees to work together provides an excellent opportunity for DOD 
to make changes that can serve the needs of both Congress and DOD. 
These changes may not be difficult to make, as much of the desired 
information already exists within DOD and some of the existing data 
collection systems are already automated and contain more detailed 
information than currently reported. How DOD responds to this direction 
will be critical to realizing this opportunity.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

DOD provided us with written comments on a draft of this report. The 
comments appear in appendix II.

DOD commented that our report should note more prominently that we 
found no evidence the department violated existing congressionally 
approved reprogramming thresholds. DOD expressed concern that Congress 
had a misconception that the department had violated existing 
threshholds and policies and had used the BTR process to initiate new 
start programs. DOD disagreed that its recent reports to Congress 
provide BTR information of limited quality and cited other information 
it provides to Congress in addition to the DD 1416. It pointed out that 
the formats for the information were developed with and approved by 
committee staff to satisfy Congress's needs. DOD did note that the 
issues we raised on the quality of information it provides can be 
addressed, and that DOD was open to suggestions and will gladly work 
with the committee staff to satisfy its needs.

DOD offered several suggestions to put the findings of the report more 
in context. These included providing the percentage value of BTRs along 
with the dollar value, and noting the reasons DOD uses BTRs. DOD also 
noted that the issue of withholds is separate from BTRs and that they 
are used primarily to temporarily hold funding from execution until 
adequate justification is provided that the resources will be executed 
efficiently and effectively as intended by Congress. DOD stated that it 
was unaware of the practice of increasing of budget requests to cover 
anticipated BTRs and withholds and that this was against DOD policy.

DOD's willingness to work with Congress is a constructive response that 
can lead to reporting changes that can meet the needs of both Congress 
and DOD. While current reporting formats may have been developed with 
committee staff to meet its needs, recent congressional direction 
suggest these needs have changed. Congress has required DOD to provide 
better and more timely information on reprogramming and withhold 
activities. We have clarified the language in the report that we did 
not observe any instances in which DOD's use of BTRs exceeded 
thresholds, but we cannot be conclusive on this point as we did not 
design steps to assess compliance with thresholds. The same observation 
and qualification applies to whether BTRs were used to start new 
programs.

We did analyze the additional information DOD provides to Congress on 
BTRs, specifically budget exhibits and monthly accounting reports. 
However, in their current format, these reports do not provide detailed 
information on individual BTRs or any information on withholds. To 
provide additional context for our findings, we have added the 
percentage value of BTRs in addition to their total dollar value, 
however, we do not believe it is necessary for individual programs. 
While the draft report does present the reasons DOD uses BTRs and 
withholds, we have added language earlier in the report to highlight 
these reasons. We believe the distinction between BTRs and withholds is 
adequately clear in the report. We note that while withholds are used 
to ensure programs are properly executed, we did find instances in 
which withholds were used to make funds available for reprogramming.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the 
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Director, 
Missile Defense Agency; and interested congressional committees. We 
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4841 or D. Catherine Baltzell at (202) 512-
8001. Other contacts and key contributors are listed in appendix IV.

Signed by: 

Paul L. Francis: 
Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the quality of the information available about the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) use of below-threshold reprogrammings 
(BTR) and withholds, we reviewed the DOD Financial Management 
Regulation and recent congressional guidelines on reprogramming and 
withholds; various DOD internal reports and reports to Congress; and 
data from financial management systems recorded for the research and 
development programs from the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA). We reviewed DOD policy and interviewed decision 
makers to gain an understanding of how various reports are prepared and 
to obtain information about BTRs and withholds. Our interviews included 
officials in the research and development and financial management 
offices of the Air Force, Army, Navy and MDA; financial management and 
acquisition policy decision maker offices including the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Office of the Director of Defense 
Research and Engineering, Director of Plans and Programs; Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; Office of the Naval 
Research Controller; Aeronautical Systems Command Financial Management 
office; Air Force Research Labs Headquarters, Propulsion Directorate, 
and Sensors Directorate; Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial 
Management and Comptroller, Investment Division-Army Budget Office; 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, for Plans, Programs, and 
Resources Office; Army Science and Technology Integration Office; and 
Army Research Laboratory Headquarters. In accordance with federal 
internal control standards, we defined quality of information as 
measured by such factors as timeliness, accessibility, accuracy, and 
appropriateness of content.

In addition, we interviewed program officials and collected data from 
13 research and development programs: Air Force (5), Army (4), and Navy 
(4). The programs were selected on the basis of three criteria: a 
laboratory, a program with significant net reduction or addition of 
funds through BTRs, and a program with a relatively high number of both 
reductions and additions of funds through BTRs. We interviewed program 
officials for the Air Force's C-130 Airlift and C-130J, and KC-10S; the 
Air Force Research Lab's Aerospace Propulsion and Aerospace Sensor's 
Labs; the Army's Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and Line-of-Sight 
Anti-Tank Missile program offices; the Army's Research Lab's Weapons 
and Materials Research, and Survivability/Lethality Directorates; the 
Navy's Ocean Engineering Technology Development, and Consolidated 
Training Systems Development Program; the Office of Naval Research 
Systems Advanced Technology program; and the Naval Ship and Aircraft 
Support program.

To determine the amount and volume of BTRs and withheld funds, we 
obtained available data from the Air Force, Army, Navy, and MDA data 
collection systems on actual BTRs and withholds and developed an 
integrated, electronic database on adjustments to designated funding 
levels for each research and development program. In developing our 
database, we assessed the reliability of the available data, which 
includes recognizing the limitations of the data as we have discussed 
in this report. We performed electronic testing of required data 
elements, reviewed existing information about the data and the systems 
that produced them, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable 
about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 
for the purpose of this report. We conducted multiple analyses of BTR 
amounts and volume. We used readily available, off-the-shelf commercial 
software to develop and analyze our database. We performed our review 
from November 2003 to July 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000:

ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS:

SEP 03 2004:

Mr. Paul L. Francis:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Francis:

The Department has reviewed the draft GAO report (04-944) "Defense 
Acquisition: Better Information Could Improve Visibility Over 
Adjustments to DoD's Research and Development Funds," dated August 10, 
2004 (GAO Code 120280/GAO-04-944) and has several comments and 
concerns. The report should prominently note that the GAO found no 
evidence the Department violated existing Congressionally approved 
reprogramming thresholds. The current statement "Although we did not 
design steps to assess whether below threshold reprogrammings (BTRs) 
exceeded the threshold, we did not observe any instances of this in the 
data we did analyze" seems too limited and obscure. It appears that the 
Congress was provided information that led them to believe that the 
Department had violated existing thresholds and policies, and used the 
BTR process to initiate new start programs, therefore it is critical 
that GAO correct this misconception.

The Department disagrees that its recent reports to the Congress 
provide BTR information of limited quality. The issues raised in the 
GAO report, such as timing, classification, and method of calculation 
(subtraction vs addition), can be addressed: The Department is open to 
suggestions and will gladly work with the committees to provide more 
meaningful data, but it should be noted that the formats used were 
developed and approved with the committee staff to satisfy their needs. 
Further, the total BTRs in FY 2003, which the draft report now notes 
are less than $1B, comprise 2% of the R&D funding for Army, Navy, Air 
Force and MDA. And if MDA is separated out, the amount of BTRs in the 
Military Departments is only 1.6% of their total R&D funding.

Further, the issue of withholds is separate from BTRs and that 
difference should be made clearer in the report.

The report states the Department's primary vehicle for reporting BTRs 
to the Congress (DD 1416) has limitations that reduce its value as a 
source of information. The first paragraph on page 7 of the draft 
report states, that "Until the reports (1416s) were received, Congress 
was less informed about whether funds were moved from one research and 
development program to another when considering program budgets the 
following year." The Department submits budget exhibits (R-2s) in 
support of the President's Budget Request each year that include tables 
for each PE that identify funding adjustments from the preceding year's 
program. Furthermore, the Department provides monthly accounting 
reports which reflect changing program values. We can run comparison 
reports if requested.

The Congress recently increased the amount the Department may reprogram 
[i.e., up to $10 million in a RDT&E line item]. If there are specific 
projects that are of special interest to the Congress, the Department 
designates them as such and provides appropriate attention during 
execution.

The Department suggests that the report put the findings more in 
context. Examples include the percentages noted above and providing the 
total appropriated value of the Joint Strike Fighter when referencing 
BTRs equaling $27 million in fiscal year 2003 in order to place the 
amount in context (i.e., $3.513 for JSF RDT&E, so $27M is less than 1 
%).

Paragraph 2 on page 10 of the report states, that the components may 
increase budget requests "to cover anticipated BTRs and withholds so 
programs can continue to perform at planned levels." This is against 
DoD policy and we are not aware of it as a practice: BTRs and withholds 
are employed to permit DoD to be a good steward of its financial 
resources. Withholds are used primarily to temporarily hold funding 
from execution until the appropriate component can provide adequate 
justification that the resources will be executed efficiently and 
effectively as intended by the Congress. As such, withholds are 
generally not a threat to the program manager's ability to execute the 
program at planned levels. BTRs are used to enable the components to 
respond to changing program requirements or to accommodate 
unanticipated increases in program funding requirements.

In conclusion, the Department would be willing to work with GAO to have 
the report discuss how to provide better information to improve 
visibility over adjustments to DoD's R&D funds. The report and its 
summary should note that DoD uses BTRs to meet unanticipated events and 
that the GAO found all actions consistent with both current statutes 
and policies. Further, the accounting system currently in place does 
provide the Congress the ability to see the net amount of funds that 
have moved from one account to another in RDT&E, 
although the system does not provide details on every BTR transaction. 
We would recommend the report discuss the level of BTR and withhold 
activity within the Department in the larger context so that it clearly 
reflects the Department's use of this important flexibility provided by 
the Congress.

Signed by: 

Nancy L. Spruill: 
Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis:

[End of section]

Appendix III: Additional Data: 

Table 9: Appropriations for Research and Development Programs: 

Fiscal year 2003; 
Organization: Air Force; 
Appropriation: $18,822,569,000; 
Number of programs: 174; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $313,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $1,733,668,000.

Fiscal year 2003; 
Organization: Army; 
Appropriation: $7,699,656,000; 
Number of programs: 165; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $489,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $914,932,000.

Fiscal year 2003; 
Organization: Navy; 
Appropriation: $13,699,864,000; 
Number of programs: 194; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $422,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $1,747,250,000.

Fiscal year 2003; 
Organization: MDA; 
Appropriation: $6,896,186,000; 
Number of programs: 12; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $7,457,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $3,185,504,000.

Fiscal year 2003; 
Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense; 
Appropriation: $2,381,413,000; 
Number of programs: 64; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $700,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $263,058,000.

Fiscal year 2003; 
Organization: Total; 
Appropriation: $49,499,688,000; 
Number of programs: 609; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: Not applicable; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: Not applicable.

Fiscal year 2002; 
Organization: Air Force; 
Appropriation: $14,699,931,000; 
Number of programs: 163; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $472,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $881,556,000.

Fiscal year 2002; 
Organization: Army; 
Appropriation: $7,106,074,000; 
Number of programs: 168; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $785,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $787,866,000.

Fiscal year 2002; 
Organization: Navy; 
Appropriation: $11,335,350,000; 
Number of programs: 198; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $428,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $769,759,000.

Fiscal year 2002; 
Organization: MDA; 
Appropriation: $7,069,425,000; 
Number of programs: 12; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $6,571,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $3,820,534,000.

Fiscal year 2002; 
Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense; 
Appropriation: $1,711,504,000; 
Number of programs: 58; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: $1,165,000; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: $250,877,000.

Fiscal year 2002; 
Total; 
Appropriation: $41,922,284,000; 
Number of programs: 599; 
Lowest designated funding level for a program: Not applicable; 
Highest designated funding level for a program: Not applicable.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Figure 4: Percentage of Programs with BTRs That Resulted in a Net 
Loss, Net Gain, or No Change in Funding in Fiscal Year 

[See PDF for image]

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data not available.

[End of figure]

Table 10: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

Value of BTR reductions: 

2003: 

Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development; 
-$24,177,000. 
Program name: C-130 Airlift Squadrons; 
-$21,037,000. 
Program name: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development; 
-$17,957,000. 
Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 
-$17,770,000. 
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 
-$10,833,000. 
Program name: Fighter Tactical Data Link; 
-$8,758,000. 
Program name: C-130J Program; 
-$7,611,000. 
Program name: B-1B; 
-$7,270,000. 
Program name: Region/Sector Operations Control Center; 
-$6,741,000. 
Program name: Advanced Extremely High Frequency Military Satellite 
Communications (Space); 
-$6,499,000; 

2002: 

Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 
-$26,168,000.
Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development; 
-$19,637,000.
Program name: Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global 
Positioning System III; 
-$10,578,000.
Program name: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development; 
-$10,478,000.
Program name: C-130 Airlift Squadrons; 
-$8,675,000.
Program name: Satellite Control Network (Space); 
-$8,458,000.
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 
-$8,155,000.
Program name: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 
-$8,035,000.
Program name: Joint Direct Attack Munition; 
-$7,821,000.
Program name: Aerospace Propulsion; 
-$5,500,000.

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Table 11: Top 10 Air Force Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons; 
$11,000,000. 
Program name: KC-10S; 
$10,220,000. 
Program name: Initial Operational Test & Evaluation; 
$10,153,000. 
Program name: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 
$9,898,000. 
Program name: Advanced Weapons Technology; 
$9,500,000. 
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 
$9,455,000. 
Program name: Support Systems Development; 
$8,949,000. 
Program name: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 
$8,830,000. 
Program name: Civilian Compensation Program; 
$7,132,000. 
Program name: Nuclear Detonation Detection System (Space); 
$5,600,000; 

2002: 

Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 
$21,541,000.
Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons; 
$10,190,000.
Program name: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 
$8,139,000.
Program name: Military Strategic and Technical Relay Low Data Rate/
Medium Data Rate Satellite Communications (Space); 
$7,928,000.
Program name: Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global 
Positioning System (Space); 
$6,653,000.
Program name: Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment; 
$6,530,000.
Program name: Small Diameter Bomb (Demonstration/Validation); 
$6,300,000.
Program name: Support Systems Development; 
$6,000,000.
Program name: KC-10S; 
$5,986,000.
Program name: Global Combat Support System; 
$5,887,000.

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Table 12: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering Development; 
-$8,677,000. 
Program name: Support of Operational Testing; 
-$7,822,000. 
Program name: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities; 
-$6,127,000. 
Program name: Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment; 
-$5,420,000. 
Program name: Artillery Systems-Demonstration/Validation; 
-$5,199,000. 
Program name: Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development; 
-$4,878,000. 
Program name: Major Test & Evaluation Investment; 
-$4,090,000. 
Program name: Aircraft Avionics; 
-$3,570,000. 
Program name: Digitization; 
-$3,464,000. 
Program name: Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile; 
-$3,051,000; 

2002: 

Program name: Other Missile Product Improvement Programs; 
-$13,207,000. 
Program name: Global Combat Support System; 
-$12,258,000. 
Program name: Landmine Warfare/Barrier-Engineering Development; 
-$12,252,000. 
Program name: Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition; 
-$12,072,000. 
Program name: Support of Operational Testing; 
-$7,428,000. 
Program name: Joint Network Management System; 
-$4,031,000. 
Program name: Management Headquarters (Research & Development); 
-$4,008,000. 
Program name: Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development; 
-$3,717,000. 
Program name: Joint Tactical Radio; 
-$3,600,000. 
Program name: Artillery Systems-Demonstration/Validation; 
-$2,619,000.

Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Table 13: Top 10 Army Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology; 
$9,999,000. 
Program name: Joint Simulation System Core Program; 
$9,555,000. 
Program name: Technical Information Activities; 
$8,919,000. 
Program name: Advanced Tank Armament System; 
$6,004,000. 
Program name: Army Evaluation Center; 
$5,903,000. 
Program name: Armored Systems Modernization-Engineering Development; 
$4,599,000. 
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Advanced Development; 
$3,912,000. 
Program name: Artillery Systems-Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development; 
$3,900,000. 
Program name: Joint Service Small Arms Program; 
$3,500,000. 
Program name: Firefinder; 
$3,500,000; 

2002: 

Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment- Engineering 
Development; 
$6,006,000.
Program name: Technical Information Activities; 
$4,596,000.
Program name: Army Test Ranges and Facilities; 
$4,003,000.
Program name: Global Surveillance/Air Defense/Precision Strike 
Technology Demonstration; 
$4,000,000.
Program name: Artillery Systems-Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development; 
$4,000,000.
Program name: Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile; 
$3,999,000.
Program name: Landmine Warfare; 
$3,999,000.
Program name: Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology; 
$3,999,000.
Program name: Landmine Warfare and Barrier-Advanced Development; 
$3,999,000.
Program name: Multiple Launch Rocket System Product Improvement 
Program; 
$3,999,000.

Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Table 14: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: V-22A; 
-$21,492,000. 
Program name: Power Projection Advanced Technology; 
-$11,806,000. 
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 
-$9,531,000. 
Program name: Guided Missile Submarine Design; 
-$9,402,000. 
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 
-$9,175,000. 
Program name: Tactical Command System; 
-$8,546,000. 
Program name: Surface and Shallow Water Mine Countermeasure; 
-$7,977,000. 
Program name: Consolidated Training Systems Development; 
-$6,890,000. 
Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology; 
-$6,657,000. 
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology; 
-$6,070,000; 

2002: 

Program name: V-22A; 
-$16,915,000.
Program name: Joint Strike Fighter; 
-$13,546,000.
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 
-$13,013,000.
Program name: Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft; 
-$11,115,000.
Program name: Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology; 
-$9,632,000.
Program name: New Design SSN; 
-$8,800,000.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 
-$8,615,000.
Program name: SC-21 Total Ship System Engineering; 
-$8,567,000.
Program name: Land Attack Technology; 
-$8,053,000.
Program name: Ship Contract Design/Live Fire Test & Evaluation; 
-$7,371,000.

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Table 15: Top 10 Navy Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Power Projection Advanced Technology; 
$18,018,000. 
Program name: Guided Missile Submarine Design; 
$13,194,000. 
Program name: Special Processes; 
$12,800,000. 
Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and 
Aircraft Support; 
$10,347,000. 
Program name: Other Helicopter Development; 
$10,199,000. 
Program name: Electronic Warfare Development; 
$10,019,000. 
Program name: Ocean Engineering Technology Development; 
$10,000,000. 
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology; 
$9,685,000. 
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 
$9,188,000. 
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 
$8,809,000; 

2002: 

Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 
$15,911,000.
Program name: Land Attack Technology; 
$11,547,000.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 
$10,287,000.
Program name: Navy Information Technology Development/Modification; 
$7,353,000.
Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration; 
$7,110,000.
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology; 
$7,075,000.
Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and 
Aircraft Support; 
$5,679,000.
Program name: V-22A; 
$5,375,000.
Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology; 
$5,084,000.
Program name: Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations; 
$4,874,000.

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Table 16: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Reductions in Dollars for 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 
-$121,249,000. 
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater 
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
-$61,318,000. 
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 
-$50,273,000. 
Program name: Sensors; 
-$31,497,000. 
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 
-$26,119,000. 
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 
-$14,785,000. 
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 
-$13,777,000. 
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
-$10,252,000. 
Program name: Medium Extended Air Defense System Demonstration/
Validation; 
-$6,440,000. 
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 
-$160,000; 

2002: 

Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 
-$123,849.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 
-$61,267.
Program name: Sensors; 
-$37,785.
Program name: Theatre High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater 
Missile Defense- Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
-$33,343.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense Segment; 
-$30,907.
Program name: Navy Area; 
-$16,897.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 
-$7,360.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 
-$5,303.
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
-$3,701.
Program name: Pentagon Reservation; 
-$2,471.

Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. 
This table only shows BTR reductions. Both BTR reductions and BTR 
additions must be taken into account to determine the net value of 
BTRs for a program. A program's net value of BTRs may not exceed the 
BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Table 17: Top 10 MDA Programs with BTR Additions in Dollars for Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 
$126,078,000. 
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 
$60,281,000. 
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater 
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
$60,026,000. 
Program name: Sensors; 
$33,163,000. 
Program name: Defense Boost Defense Segment; 
$18,447,000. 
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 
$16,983,000. 
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 
$15,467,000. 
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 
$10,078,000. 
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
$0. 
Program name: Medium Extended Air Defense System Demonstration/
Validation; 
$0; 

2002: 

Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 
$131,035.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 
$65,145.
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 
$38,411.
Program name: Sensors; 
$28,077.
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 
$12,456.
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System- Theater 
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
$10,758.
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 
$10,270.
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 
$6,879.
Program name: Navy Area; 
$2,456. 
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
$10.

Note: Dollar amounts are not net values. This table only shows BTR 
additions. Both BTR reductions and BTR additions must be taken into 
account to determine the net value of BTRs for a program. A program's 
net value of BTRs may not exceed the BTR threshold.

[End of table]

Table 18: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 11 BTR Reductions, 5 
BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 2003: 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: F-22 Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$3,999,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Multi-sensor 
Command and Control Constellation; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: HValue: -$3,999,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: F-22 Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$3,900,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$3,999,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: F-15E Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$2,000,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Life Support 
Systems; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$2,160,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: A-10 Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$1,758,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Joint Direct 
Attack Munition; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$440,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: F-117A Squadron; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$450,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Advanced Medium 
Range Air-to-Air Missile; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$970,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Recipient program: Electronic 
Warfare Development; 
BTR reductions: Total -$24,177,000: Value: -$502,000; 

BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: F-16 Squadrons; 
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $100,000.

BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: B-52 Squadrons; 
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $50,000.

BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: Joint Air-to-Surface 
Standoff Missile; 
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $250,000.

BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: Combat Training Ranges; 
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $50,000.

BTR additions: Total $500,000: Donor program: Hard and Deeply Buried 
Target Defeat System; 
BTR additions: Total $500,000: Value: $50,000.

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2003, BTRs with a net value greater than $10 
million were still within the threshold for BTR reductions if the net 
value did not exceed 20 percent of the program's designated funding.

[End of table]

Table 19: Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force) Had 10 BTR Reductions, Zero 
BTR Additions for Fiscal Year 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Rand Project Air 
Force; 
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$3,999,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: A-10 Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$3,922,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint Direct 
Attack Munition; 
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$683,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint Air-to- 
Surface Standoff Missile; 
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$3,999,999; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint 
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 
BTR reductions: Total - $19,635,932: Value: -$250,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Distributed 
Common Ground Systems; 
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$500,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint 
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 
BTR reductions: Total - $19,635,932: Value: -$150,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Joint 
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 
BTR reductions: Total - $19,635,932: Value: -$966,933; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: F-15E 
Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$4,165,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Recipient program: Initial 
Operational Test & Evaluation; 
BTR reductions: Total -$19,635,932: Value: -$1,000,000; 

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2002, BTRs with a net value greater than $4 
million were still within the threshold for BTR reductions if the net 
value did not exceed 20 percent of the program's designated funding.

[End of table]

Table 20: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 4 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR 
Additions for Fiscal Year 2003: 

BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Recipient program: Anti-Submarine 
Warfare & Other Helicopter Development; 
BTR reductions: Total - $3,613,000: Value: -$1,700,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Recipient program: H-1 Upgrades; 
BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Value: -$849,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Recipient program: V-22, and Joint 
Direct Attack Munition; 
BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Value: -$694,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$3,613,000: Recipient program: Anti-Submarine 
Warfare & Other Helicopter Development; 
BTR reductions: Total - $3,613,000: Value: -$370,000; 

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2003, BTRs with a net value greater than $10 
million were still within the threshold for BTR reductions if the net 
value did not exceed 20 percent of the program's designated funding.

[End of table]

Table 21: Joint Strike Fighter (Navy) Had 11 BTR Reductions, Zero BTR 
Additions for Fiscal Year 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Electronic 
Warfare Development; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$2,943,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Joint Precision 
Approach and Landing System; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$2,860,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: AIM-9X; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$1,278,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Lapsed 
Liability; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$128,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Standards 
Development; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$800,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Active 
Electronically Scanned Array; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$1,894,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Standards 
Development; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$1,681,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Aviation 
Survivability; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$48,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Test and 
Evaluation Support; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$608,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Carrier Systems 
Development; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$300,000; 

BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Recipient program: Carrier Systems 
Development; 
BTR reductions: Total -$13,546,000: Value: -$1,006,000; 

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: For fiscal year 2002, BTRs with a net value greater than $4 
million were still within the threshold for BTR reductions if the net 
value did not exceed 20 percent of the program's designated funding.

[End of table]

Table 22: Percentage of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 

Organization: Air Force; 
0 BTRs: 28%; 
1 BTR: 29%; 
2-5 BTRs: 37%; 
6- 15 BTRs: 6%; 
16-35 or more: 0%; 
Total percentage: 100%.

Organization: Army; 
0 BTRs: 7%; 
1 BTR: 12%; 
2-5 BTRs: 47%; 
6-15 BTRs: 30%; 
16-35 or more: 5%; 
Total percentage: 101%[A].

Organization: Navy; 
0 BTRs: 9%; 
1 BTR: 5%; 
2-5 BTRs: 44%; 
6-15 BTRs: 28%; 
16-35 or more: 15%; 
Total percentage: 101%[A].

Organization: MDA; 
0 BTRs: 8%; 
1 BTR: 0%; 
2-5 BTRs: 8%; 
6-15 BTRs: 17%; 
16- 35 or more: 67%; 
Total percentage: 100%.

Organization: Total; 
0 BTRs: 14%; 
1 BTR: 14%; 
2-5 BTRs: 42%; 
6-15 BTRs: 22%; 
16-35 or more: 8; 
Total percentage: 100%.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

[A] Total percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

[End of table]

Table 23: Number of Programs with BTRs in Fiscal Year 

Organization: Air Force; 
0: 45; 
1: 47; 
2: 20; 
3: 28; 
4: 8; 
5: 5; 
6-10: 10; 
11-15: 0; 
16-20: 0; 
21-25: 0; 
26-30: 0; 
31-35: 0; 
35 or more: 0; 
Total: 163.

Organization: Army; 
0: 11; 
1: 20; 
2: 15; 
3: 27; 
4: 24; 
5: 13; 
6-10: 44; 
11-15: 6; 
16-20: 6; 
21-25: 1; 
26-30: 0; 
31-35: 1; 
35 or more: 0; 
Total: 168.

Organization: Navy; 
0: 17; 
1: 9; 
2: 32; 
3: 18; 
4: 27; 
5: 11; 
6-10: 32; 
11-15: 23; 
16-20: 23; 
21-25: 1; 
26-30: 2; 
31-35: 2; 
35 or more: 1; 
Total: 198.

Organization: MDA; 
0: 1; 
1: 0; 
2: 1; 
3: 0; 
4: 0; 
5: 0; 
6-10: 2; 
11-15: 0; 
16-20: 1; 
21-25: 2; 
26-30: 0; 
31-35: 1; 
35 or more: 4; 
Total: 12.

Organization: Total; 
0: 74; 
1: 76; 
2: 68; 
3: 73; 
4: 59; 
5: 29; 
6-10: 88; 
11-15: 29; 
16-20: 30; 
21-25: 4; 
26-30: 2; 
31-35: 4; 
35 or more: 5; 
Total: 541.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Figure 5: Percentage of Programs with Only BTR Reductions, Only BTR 
Additions, and Both BTR Reductions and Additions in Fiscal Year 2002: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Office of the Secretary of Defense data were not available.

[End of figure] 

Table 24: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development; 11. 
Program name: Joint Tactical Radio Systems; 10. 
Program name: C-130 Airlift Squadrons; 6. 
Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 6. 
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 6. 
Program name: B-52 Squadrons; 5. 
Program name: Fighter Tactical Data Link; 5. 
Program name: C-130J Program; 4. 
Program name: CV-22; 4. 
Program name: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development; 4. 
Program name: B-1B; 4; 

2002: 

Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development; 10. 
Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 9. 
Program name: Joint Direct Attack Munition; 7. 
Program name: Satellite Control Network (Space); 7. 
Program name: Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global 
Positioning System III; 7. 
Program name: Test and Evaluation Support; 6. 
Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 5. 
Program name: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 5. 
Program name: F15E Squadrons; 5. 
Program name: KC-10S; 5. 
Program name: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile-Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development; 5; 

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Table 25: Top 10 Air Force Programs by Number of BTR Additions in 
Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Support Systems Development; 4. 
Program name: Global Combat Support System; 4. 
Program name: Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 3. 
Program name: KC-10S; 3. 
Program name: Rand Project Air Force; 3. 
Program name: E-4B National Airborne Operations Center; 2. 
Program name: Life Support Systems; 2. 
Program name: Joint Direct Attack Munition; 2. 
Program name: Dragon U-2 (Joint Military Intelligence Program); 2. 
Program name: U.S. Air Force Modeling and Simulation; 2. 
Program name: Distributed Common Ground Systems; 2. 
Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons; 2. 
Program name: C-17 Aircraft; 2. 
Program name: KC-135S; 2. 
Program name: Intelligence Advanced Development; 2. 
Program name: Manned Reconnaissance Systems; 2. 
Program name: Theater Battle Management Command, Control, 
Communications, Computers and Intelligence; 2. 
Program name: Common Low Observable Verification; 2. 
Program name: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 2. 
Program name: F-15E Squadrons; 2. 
Program name: Test and Evaluation Support; 2. 
Program name: Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile; 2; 

2002: 

Program name: Navigational Satellite Timing and Ranging Global 
Positioning System (Space); 4. 
Program name: Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; 4. 
Program name: KC-10S; 4. 
Program name: Support Systems Development; 3. 
Program name: Polar Military Satellite Communications (Space); 3. 
Program name: Military Strategic and Technical Relay Low Data Rate/
Medium Data Rate Satellite Communications (Space); 3. 
Program name: Initial Operational Test & Evaluation; 3. 
Program name: Wideband Gapfiller System (Research, Development, Test & 
Evaluation) Space; 3. 
Program name: Global Combat Support System; 2. 
Program name: Electronic Warfare Development; 2. 
Program name: Small Diameter Bomb (Demonstration/Validation); 2. 
Program name: Armament/Ordnance Development; 2. 
Program name: Combat Identification Technology; 2. 
Program name: F15E Squadrons; 2. 
Program name: U.S. Air Force Modeling and Simulation; 2. 
Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons; 2. 
Program name: Joint Direct Attack Munition; 2. 
Program name: Distributed Common Ground Systems; 2. 
Program name: Airborne Reconnaissance Systems; 2. 
Program name: Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment; 2. 
Program name: Advanced Spacecraft Technology; 2. 
Program name: Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence 
Advanced Development; 2. 
Program name: Theater Battle Management Command, Control, 
Communications, Computers and Intelligence; 2. 
Program name: Test and Evaluation Support; 2.

Sources: Air Force (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Table 26: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering Development; 12. 
Program name: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities; 6. 
Program name: Warfighter Advanced Technology; 6. 
Program name: Medical Technology; 6. 
Program name: Defense Research Sciences; 6. 
Program name: Military Engineering Technology; 5. 
Program name: Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment; 5. 
Program name: Support of Operational Testing; 5. 
Program name: Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade & Below; 4. 
Program name: Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank Missile; 4. 
Program name: Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development; 4. 
Program name: Sensors and Electronic Survivability; 8. 
Program name: Landmine Warfare/Barrier- Engineering Development; 8.

2002: 

Program name: Defense Research Sciences; 14. 
Program name: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities; 13. 
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering Development; 13. 
Program name: Global Combat Support System; 11. 
Program name: Programwide Activities; 11. 
Program name: Support of Operational Testing; 10. 
Program name: Environmental Quality Technology Demonstration/
Validation; 9. 
Program name: Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety; 9. 
Program name: Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology; 9. 
Program name: Command, Control, Communications Technology; 8. 
Program name: Night Vision Systems-Engineering Development; 8;

Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Table 27: Top 10 Army Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Technical Information Activities; 15. 
Program name: Advanced Tank Armament System; 6. 
Program name: Closed Account Adjustment; 5. 
Program name: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology; 4. 
Program name: Line-of-Sight Technology Demonstration; 4. 
Program name: Joint Simulation System Core Program; 4. 
Program name: Management Headquarters (Research and Development); 4. 
Program name: Programwide Activities; 4. 
Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Advanced Development; 3. 
Program name: Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology; 3. 
Program name: University and Industry Research Centers; 3. 
Program name: Aircraft Modifications/Product Improvement Program; 3. 
Program name: Digitization; 3; 

2002: 

Program name: Army Test Ranges and Facilities; 29. 
Program name: Canceled Account Adjustments; 21. 
Program name: Army Evaluation Center; 10. 
Program name: University and Industry Research Centers; 10. 
Program name: Sensors and Electronic Survivability; 9. 
Program name: Programwide Activities; 9. 
Program name: Technical Information Activities; 8. 
Program name: Advanced Concepts and Simulation; 6. 
Program name: Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck; 6. 
Program name: Information Technology Development; 5. 
Program name: Command, Control, Communications Advanced Technology; 5;

Sources: Army (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Table 28: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems; 19. 
Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 19. 
Program name: Navy Information Technology Development/Modification; 17. 
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 15. 
Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology; 13. 
Program name: Warfighter Protection Advanced Technology; 12. 
Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and 
Aircraft Support; 12. 
Program name: Tactical Command System; 11. 
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System; 11. 
Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration; 10; 

2002: 

Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 21. 
Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration; 19. 
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 17. 
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems; 17. 
Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 16. 
Program name: V-22A; 16. 
Program name: Defense Research Sciences; 16. 
Program name: Satellite Communications (Space); 15. 
Program name: Navy Information Technology Development/Modification; 15. 
Program name: Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology;14. 
Program name: Carrier Systems Development; 13; 

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Table 29: Top 10 Navy Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms System; 16. 
Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Science and 
Technology Management; 12. 
Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 10. 
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology; 9. 
Program name: Marine Corps Program Wide Support; 9. 
Program name: Marine Corps Information Technology Development/
Modification; 9. 
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 8. 
Program name: Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations; 7. 
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System; 7. 
Program name: Marine Corps Combat Services Support; 6. 
Program name: Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology; 6. 
Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration; 6. 
Program name: Undersea Warfare Applied Research; 6. 
Program name: Space and Electronic Warfare Architecture/Engineering 
Support; 6; 

2002: 

Program name: Tactical Command System; 9.
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 19. 
Program name: Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations; 16. 
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms System; 15. 
Program name: Power Projection Advanced Technology; 13. 
Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 11. 
Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 11. 
Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology; 11. 
Program name: Marine Corps Program Wide Support; 11. 
Program name: Marine Corps Information Technology Development/
Modification; 10. 
Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology; 9. 
Program name: Force Protection Applied Research; 9. 
Program name: Studies and Analysis Support-Navy; 9. 
Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research; 9. 
Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System; 9;

Sources: Navy (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Table 30: Top 10 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Reductions in Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 129. 
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater Missile 
Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 30. 
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 18. 
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 17. 
Program name: Sensors; 14. 
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 12. 
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 8. 
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 3. 
Program name: Medium Extended Air Defense System Demonstration/
Validation; 2. 
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 1; 

2002: 
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 170. 
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 51. 
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 41. 
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System-Theater Missile 
Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 28. 
Program name: Sensors; 27. 
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 19. 
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 13. 
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense- 
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 7. 
Program name: Navy Area; 5. 
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 4. 

Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Table 31: Top 8 MDA Programs by Number of BTR Additions in Fiscal 
Years 2003 and 2002: 

2003: 

Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 64. 
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 35. 
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System Theater 
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 24. 
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 9. 
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 9. 
Program name: Sensors; 8. 
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 7. 
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 7; 

2002: 

Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 81. 
Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 47. 
Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 19. 
Program name: Sensors; 14. 
Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 12. 
Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 12. 
Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System Theater 
Missile Defense- Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 4. 
Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 4. 
Program name: Navy Area; 2. 
Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile Defense-
Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 1.

Sources: MDA (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Table 32: Programs with Highest Combined Number of BTRs in Fiscal Year 
2003:

Air Force: Program name: Joint Strike Fighter Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$24,177,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 11; 
BTR additions: Value: $500,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 1; 
Total: Net value: -$23,677; 
Total: Net total: 12;

Air Force: Program name: Joint Tactical Radio Systems; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$3,539,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 10; 
BTR additions: Value: $284,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 1; 
Total: Net value: -$3,255,000; 
Total: Net total: 11;

Air Force: Program name: C-130 Airlift Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$21,037,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 6; 
BTR additions: Value: $2,805,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 1; 
Total: Net value: -$18,232,000; 
Total: Net total: 7;

Air Force: Program name: Large Aircraft InfraRed Counter Measures; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$10,833,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 6; 
BTR additions: Value: $9,455,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 1; 
Total: Net value: -$1,378,000; 
Total: Net total: 7;

Air Force: Program name: B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$17,770,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 6; 
BTR additions: Value: $0; 
BTR additions: Number: 0; 
Total: Net value: -$17,770,000; 
Total: Net total: 6;

Air Force: Program name: B-52 Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$1,102,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 5; 
BTR additions: Value: $0; 
BTR additions: Number: 0; 
Total: Net value: -$1,102,000; 
Total: Net total: 5;

Air Force: Program name: Global Combat Support System; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$284,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 1; 
BTR additions: Value: $1,989,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 4; 
Total: Net value: $1,705,000; 
Total: Net total: 5;

Air Force: Program name: Fighter Tactical Data Link; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$8,758,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 5; 
BTR additions: Value: $0; 
BTR additions: Number: 0; 
Total: Net value: -$8,758,000; 
Total: Net total: 5;

Air Force: Program name: Support Systems Development; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$974,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 1; 
BTR additions: Value: $8,949,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 4; 
Total: Net value: $7,975,000; 
Total: Net total: 5;

Air Force: Program name: C-5 Airlift Squadrons; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$3,157,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 3; 
BTR additions: Value: $11,000,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 2; 
Total: Net value: $7,832,000; 
Total: Net total: 5.

Army: Program name: Technical Information Activities; 
BTR reductions: Value: $0; 
BTR reductions: Number: 0; 
BTR additions: Value: $8,919,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 15; 
Total: Net value: $8,919,000; 
Total: Net total: 15;

Army: Program name: Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engineering 
Development; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$8,677,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 12; 
BTR additions: Value: $0; 
BTR additions: Number: 0; 
Total: Net value: -$8,677,000; 
Total: Net total: 12;

Army: Program name: Medical Technology; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$1,667,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 6; 
BTR additions: Value: $934,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 1; 
Total: Net value: -$733,000; 
Total: Net total: 7;

Army: Program name: End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$6,127,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 6; 
BTR additions: Value: $260,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 1; 
Total: Net value: -$5,867,000; 
Total: Net total: 7;

Army: Program name: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced 
Technology; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$2,585,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 3; 
BTR additions: Value: $9,999,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 4; 
Total: Net value: $7,414,000; 
Total: Net total: 7;

Army: Program name: Programwide Activities; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$345,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 3; 
BTR additions: Value: $2,169,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 4; 
Total: Net value: $1,824,000; 
Total: Net total: 7;

Army: Program name: Defense Research Sciences; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$2,593,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 6; 
BTR additions: Value: $50,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 1; 
Total: Net value: -$2,543,000; 
Total: Net total: 7;

Army: Program name: Warfighter Advanced Technology; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$1,370,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 6; 
BTR additions: Value: $0; 
BTR additions: Number: 0; 
Total: Net value: -$1,370,000; 
Total: Net total: 6;

Army: Program name: Advanced Tank Armament System; 
BTR reductions: Value: $0; 
BTR reductions: Number: 0; 
BTR additions: Value: $6,004,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 6; 
Total: Net value: $6,004,000; 
Total: Net total: 6;

Army: Program name: University and Industry Research Centers; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$800,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 3; 
BTR additions: Value: $1,766,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 3; 
Total: Net value: $966,000; 
Total: Net total: 6.

Navy: Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms 
Systems; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$3,674,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 19; 
BTR additions: Value: $2,938,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 16; 
Total: Net value: -$739,000; 
Total: Net total: 35;

Navy: Program name: Marine Corps Communications Systems; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$5,759,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 19; 
BTR additions: Value: $1,963,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 10; 
Total: Net value: -$3,793,000; 
Total: Net total: 29;

Navy: Program name: Navy Information Technology Development/
Modification; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$4,075,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 17; 
BTR additions: Value: $1,145,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 4; 
Total: Net value: -$2,930,000; 
Total: Net total: 21;

Navy: Program name: Radio Frequency Systems Advanced Technology; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$9,175,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 15; 
BTR additions: Value: $8,809,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 4; 
Total: Net value: -$366,000; 
Total: Net total: 19;

Navy: Program name: Common Picture Advanced Technology; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$6,657,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 13; 
BTR additions: Value: $5,321,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 5; 
Total: Net value: -$1,336,000; 
Total: Net total: 18;

Navy: Program name: Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$2,346,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 11; 
BTR additions: Value: $3,299,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 7; 
Total: Net value: $953,000; 
Total: Net total: 18;

Navy: Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and 
Aircraft Support; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$5,806,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 12; 
BTR additions: Value: $10,347,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 5; 
Total: Net value: $4,541,000; 
Total: Net total: 17;

Navy: Program name: Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstrations; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$2,440,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 10; 
BTR additions: Value: $2,468,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 6; 
Total: Net value: $28,000; 
Total: Net total: 16;

Navy: Program name: Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$9,531,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 8; 
BTR additions: Value: $9,188,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 8; 
Total: Net value: -$343,000; 
Total: Net total: 16;

Navy: Program name: Force Protection Advanced Technology; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$6,070,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 6; 
BTR additions: Value: $9,685,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 9; 
Total: Net value: $3,615,000; 
Total: Net total: 15;

Navy: Program name: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Ship and 
Aircraft Support; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$5,806,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 11; 
BTR additions: Value: $10,347,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 5; 
Total: Net value: $4,541,000; 
Total: Net total: 16.

MDA: Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense System; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$121,249,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 129; 
BTR additions: Value: $126,078,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 64; 
Total: Net value: $4,829,000; 
Total: Net total: 193;

MDA: Program name: Theater High Altitude Area Defense System Theater 
Missile Defense-Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$61,318,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 30; 
BTR additions: Value: $60,026,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 24; 
Total: Net value: -$1,292,000; 
Total: Net total: 54;

MDA: Program name: Midcourse Defense Segment; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$50,273,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 17; 
BTR additions: Value: $60,281,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 35; 
Total: Net value: $10,008,000; 
Total: Net total: 52;

MDA: Program name: Ballistic Missile Defense Technology; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$13,777,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 18; 
BTR additions: Value: $16,983,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 9; 
Total: Net value: $3,206,000; 
Total: Net total: 27;

MDA: Program name: Sensors; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$31,497,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 14; 
BTR additions: Value: $33,163,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 8; 
Total: Net value: $1,666,000; 
Total: Net total: 22;

MDA: Program name: Boost Defense Segment; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$26,119,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 12; 
BTR additions: Value: $18,447,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 9; 
Total: Net value: -$7,672,000; 
Total: Net total: 21;

MDA: Program name: Terminal Defense Segment; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$14,785,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 8; 
BTR additions: Value: $15,467,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 7; 
Total: Net value: $682,000; 
Total: Net total: 15;

MDA: Program name: Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$160,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 1; 
BTR additions: Value: $10,078,000; 
BTR additions: Number: 7; 
Total: Net value: $9,918,000; 
Total: Net total: 8;

MDA: Program name: Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Theater Missile 
Defense- Engineering and Manufacturing Development; 
BTR reductions: Value: -$10,252,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 3; 
BTR additions: Value: $0; 
BTR additions: Number: 0; 
Total: Net value: -$10,252,000; 
Total: Net total: 3;

MDA: Program name: Medium Extended Air Defense System Demonstration/
Validation (Program Definition/Validation); 
BTR reductions: Value: -$6,440,000; 
BTR reductions: Number: 2; 
BTR additions: Value: $0; 
BTR additions: Number: 0; 
Total: Net value: -$6,440,000; 
Total: Net total: 2.

Table 33: Dollar Value of Withholds for Fiscal Year 2002 Programs:

Organization: Air Force; 
Value of withholds: N/A.

Organization: Army; 
Value of withholds: $140,126,000.

Organization: Navy; 
Value of withholds: $1,090,670,000.

Organization: MDA; 
Value of withholds: N/A[A].

Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense; 
Value of withholds: $2,742,580,000.

Organization: Total; 
Value of withholds: $3,973,376,000.

Sources: Air Force, Army, Navy, MDA, Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (data); 
GAO (analysis).

[A] MDA says that while it does not always release all appropriated 
funds immediately to its programs, it does not consider these actions 
to be withholds and did not provide this data to us.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Paul L. Francis (202) 512-4841 D. Catherine Baltzell (202) 512-8001: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition, key contributors to the report include Lily J. Chin, 
Christopher A. Deperro, Joseph E. Dewechter, Alan Frazier, Ivy Hubler, 
Matthew R. Mongin, Bonita J.P. Oden, Katrina D. Taylor, Bradley L. 
Terry, and Adam Vodraska.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products: 

Coast Guard: Station Spending Requirements Met, but Better Processes 
Needed to Track Designated Funds. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-704] 
Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.

Military Housing: Opportunities Exist to Better Explain Family Housing 
O&M Budget Requests and Increase Visibility Over Reprogramming of 
Funds. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-583] 
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004.

Future Years Defense Program: Actions Needed to Improve Transparency 
of DOD's Projected Resource Needs. [
Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-514] 
Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2004.

Budget Issues: Reprogramming of Federal Air Marshal Service Funds in 
Fiscal Year 2003. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-577R] 
Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004.

Budget Process: Long-Term Focus Is Critical. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-585T] 
Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2004.

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-98] 
Washington, D.C.: January 2003.

Defense Budget: Improved Reviews Needed to Ensure Better Management of 
Obligated Funds. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-275] 
Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2003.

Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-1106T] 
Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002.

Congressional Oversight: Challenges for the 21st Century. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-OCG-00-11] 
Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2000.

Managing in the New Millennium: Shaping a More Efficient and Effective 
Government for the 21st Century. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-OCG-00-9] 
Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000.

Congressional Oversight: Opportunities to Address Risks, Reduce Costs, 
and Improve Performance. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-AIMD-00-96] 
Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2000. 

(120280): 



FOOTNOTES

[1] The funds are appropriated in a lump sum for each of the research 
and development accounts (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-wide) and 
the conference report accompanying the annual DOD appropriations act 
designates both the individual programs to receive the funds and the 
amount each program is to receive.

[2] Above-threshold reprogrammings are not a focus of this report 
because they are visible to Congress.

[3] By donor we mean the program(s) from which funds are shifted and by 
recipient we mean the receiving program(s).

[4] As used in this report, the term withholding does not refer to 
withholdings of budget authority as defined under the Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974.

[5] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-283, at 231. The Conference Report used the 
term "taxes" or "taxing" to refer to reductions by DOD to the levels of 
funding appropriated to a program. To avoid confusion, this report does 
not use these terms as they are not used in DOD's Financial Management 
Regulation. Instead, we use the terms reprogramming or withholds.

[6] GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G 
(Washington D.C.: August 2001).

[7] The KC-10S program was canceled shortly after this increase in 
funding.

[8] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-622, at 68.

[9] DOD's instructions for the congressional notification process for 
reprogrammings are contained in the DOD Financial Management 
Regulation, vol. 3, chapter 6 (August 2000), as supplemented by the DOD 
Comptroller. Reprogramming differs from a transfer, which is the 
shifting of funds between appropriations. For example, a military 
service receives an appropriation for research and development but 
transfers the funds out of research and development to operations and 
maintenance. Transfers require specific statutory authority. DOD has 
multiple statutory transfer authorities.

[10] At the request of Army budget officials, we also compared the data 
contained in the DD 1416 with electronic data from the Program Budget 
Accounting System. However, the accounting system's electronic data did 
not match the data contained in the DD 1416s. The percentage of 
mismatches was 32.5 percent in fiscal year 2003 and 22.9 percent in 
fiscal year 2002.

[11] Reprogramming of the remaining 41 percent, or about $700 million, 
was above the threshold, required prior congressional approval, and was 
visible to Congress.

[12] A program with BTRs may have experienced a net loss, a net gain, 
or no change in funds, depending on how the BTRs were applied.

[13] Specifically, rescissions and reductions cancel appropriated 
funding by canceling the availability of budget authority provided by 
law before the authority would otherwise lapse.

[14] P. L. 107-248, section 8135(a).

[15] Memorandum from DOD Comptroller, Nov. 4, 2003, FY 2004 Below 
Threshold Reprogramming (BTR) Authority Policy, implementing direction 
of H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-283, at 60.

[16] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-622, at 68.

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 



Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: