at pres ent . . * nccounting of actual outlays follorrs the appropriation categories used by the ConF;ress of the United States in Ftranting budget authority to United States government aGencias . . . . out1ays ) whic!? are not the main financia1 neasure used in United States bud,!?etary planning and accounting, are readily available only in this format.” (b) Enel’s comments h2. It lies in tñe nature of standardization that a standardized format ten& to be more suitable for some countries and. less so for others. 3evertheless, it was possi,hle also for al1 countries to structure their military expenditures in apnroxinate accordance, at least, Irith the main cate;r,ories in the matrix. (c) Panel’s acsessment 43. Eti vieT!r of the fact th.a-6 no countries bad any ob,iections concernin- ,the general scope of military expenditures as defined bg the matrix and that only J?ra.nce and two other countries did not at the time of replyinp: report their figures on a ver’? detailed. level, the Panel consiil.ers that the current scope and detail of information requested by the matrix are ,n;enerally appropriate. This does not, of course, preclude certain minor modifications srith the view of further improving and simplifyin~ the matrix. Such questions will be discussed beloT?, torce Rroups (coluzqn henc?inqs) I-w WF. The classification of column hea,dinns in the matrix represents a compromise between functional cate::orization lq missiou or programme (Strategic forces, Support) and the traditional organixation or a$ency cateFories (Rrmy, Vavy, Air Forte), Stratectic forces (column 1) (a) Respondents’ commens 45 Amonp the respondents, France and thr? United States have strategic forces. UnAer this column, Yrance reported its expen?itures on bo-th strategic nuclear forces and tactical nuclear arms, The reason for this, however, was no-t explaine< 46 , !j?he Uniter! States d.id not fil1 in the columns for strategic Torces in its 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing military expenditures and budgetary planning, with a focus on classification and standardization of military spending across different countries. The language used is technical and bureaucratic, suggesting a context of government or international organization.

**Category**
Military, International relations