[House Report 106-616]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-616
_______________________________________________________________________
FLOYD D. SPENCE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4205
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-616
_______________________________________________________________________
FLOYD D. SPENCE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4205
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-304 WASHINGTON : 2000
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Sixth Congress
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman
BOB STUMP, Arizona IKE SKELTON, Missouri
DUNCAN HUNTER, California NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia Carolina
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado LANE EVANS, Illinois
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
STEVE BUYER, Indiana NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JAMES TALENT, Missouri PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California TOM ALLEN, Maine
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ADAM SMITH, Washington
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
Carolina CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania
BOB RILEY, Alabama ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada BARON P. HILL, Indiana
MARY BONO, California MIKE THOMPSON, California
JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
STEVEN KUYKENDALL, California
DONALD SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 1
Purpose.......................................................... 2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill............................. 2
Summary Table of Authorizations................................ 3
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 10
Hearings......................................................... 17
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION.................. 19
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 19
OVERVIEW....................................................... 19
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 22
Overview................................................... 22
Items of Special Interest.................................. 26
AH-64 modifications...................................... 26
Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)........................ 26
Airborne communications.................................. 26
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)................... 27
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications..... 27
CH-47 Chinook/UH-60 Blackhawk crashworthy fuel tanks..... 28
Helicopter crashworthy seats............................. 28
TH-67 Creek.............................................. 28
UH-60 Blackhawk.......................................... 29
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 29
Overview................................................... 29
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) system summary..... 32
Multipurpose individual munition (MPIM) advance
procurement.......................................... 32
Patriot advanced capability-2 (PAC-2).................... 32
Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM)....................... 32
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 33
Overview................................................... 33
Items of Special Interest.................................. 37
Armored vehicle launch bridge (AVLB) service life
extension program (SLEP)............................. 37
Bradley base sustainment................................. 37
Bradley fighting vehicle system (BFVS) series
(modifications)...................................... 37
Heavy assault bridge (HAB) system........................ 38
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV).......................... 38
Industrial preparedness.................................. 38
M1 Abrams tank modifications............................. 39
M113 carrier modifications............................... 39
M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)........................ 39
MK19-3 grenade launcher.................................. 40
Small arms production industrial base.................... 40
Ammunition Procurement, Army................................. 40
Overview................................................... 40
Items of Special Interest.................................. 44
Army ammunition procurement.............................. 44
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 44
Overview................................................... 44
Items of Special Interest.................................. 54
Army data distribution system (ADDS)..................... 54
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)............... 54
Army training modernization.............................. 54
Combat support medical................................... 55
Combat training centers instrumentation support.......... 55
Communications equipment system upgrades................. 56
Construction equipment service life extension program
(SLEP)............................................... 56
Cranes................................................... 57
Deployable universal combat earthmovers (DEUCE).......... 57
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)................. 57
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)................ 58
High mobility multipurpose-wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)....... 58
Hydraulic excavator (HYEX)............................... 58
Information system security program (ISSP)............... 59
Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)............... 59
Laundries, showers, and latrines......................... 59
Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME).................. 60
M56 smoke generator system............................... 60
M915/M916 line haul truck tractor........................ 60
Night vision devices..................................... 60
Nonsystem training devices............................... 61
Reserve component automation system (RCAS)............... 61
Ribbon bridge............................................ 62
Single channel ground and airborne radio systems
(SINCGARS) family...................................... 62
Small tug................................................ 63
Standard integrated command post system (SICPS).......... 63
Standard teleoperating kit............................... 63
Vibratory self-propelled roller.......................... 64
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.............. 64
Overview................................................... 64
Items of Special Interest.................................. 66
Chemical agents and munitions destruction................ 66
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 66
Overview................................................... 66
Items of Special Interest.................................. 71
Advanced helicopter emergency egress lighting system
(ADHEELS)............................................ 71
AN/AVR-2A laser detecting set............................ 71
AV-8B.................................................... 71
C-40A.................................................... 72
CH-60S................................................... 72
E-2 modifications........................................ 72
EA-6B modifications...................................... 73
F-18 series modifications................................ 73
F/A-18C/D tactical aircraft moving map capability
(TAMMAC)............................................. 74
F/A-18E/F................................................ 75
HH/UH-1N reclamation and conversion program.............. 75
H-46 modifications....................................... 76
H-53 modifications....................................... 76
KC-130J.................................................. 76
T-45 training system (TS)................................ 77
Tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS)-completely
digital (CD)........................................... 77
UC-35.................................................... 78
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 78
Overview................................................... 78
Items of Special Interest.................................. 82
Hellfire II missile...................................... 82
Improved tactical air-launched decoy (ITALD)............. 82
Joint standoff weapon (JSOW)............................. 82
Standoff land attack missile-expanded response (SLAM-ER). 82
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps.................... 83
Overview................................................... 83
Items of Special Interest.................................. 84
Navy ammunition procurement.............................. 84
Marine Corps ammunition procurement...................... 84
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 84
Overview................................................... 84
Items of Special Interest.................................. 89
LHD-8 amphibious assault ship............................ 89
Auxiliary dry cargo ship................................. 89
Submarine force level.................................... 89
Submarine refueling overhauls............................ 90
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 91
Overview................................................... 91
Items of Special Interest.................................. 101
AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radar....................... 101
Aviation life support.................................... 101
Education support equipment.............................. 101
High-pressure cleaner.................................... 101
Joint tactical terminal.................................. 102
Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)................... 102
Nuclear attack submarine (SSN) acoustics................. 102
Operating forces industrial plant equipment.............. 103
Other training equipment................................. 103
Sonobuoys................................................ 103
Undersea warfare support equipment....................... 103
WSN-7B ring laser gyro (RLG)............................. 104
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 104
Overview................................................... 104
Items of Special Interest.................................. 109
Command post systems..................................... 109
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)....... 109
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV).......................... 109
Material handling equipment.............................. 110
Modification kits (intelligence)......................... 110
Radio systems............................................ 111
Small unit riverine craft (SURC)......................... 111
Training devices......................................... 111
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 112
Overview................................................... 112
Items of Special Interest.................................. 119
A-10 modifications....................................... 119
Aircraft navigational and passenger safety equipment..... 119
C-130 modifications...................................... 120
Compass call block 30/35 mission crew simulator (MCS).... 120
C-135 modifications...................................... 121
C-17..................................................... 121
C-17 reverse-affiliate units............................. 122
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 56.. 122
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 80.. 124
F-15 modifications....................................... 124
F-15E.................................................... 125
F-16 modifications....................................... 125
F-16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS).......... 126
F-16C.................................................... 127
E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system
(STARS).............................................. 128
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly
(LESPA).............................................. 128
Predator................................................. 128
T-3A modifications....................................... 129
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................ 129
Overview................................................... 129
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 132
Overview................................................... 132
Items of Special Interest.................................. 136
AGM-65 modifications..................................... 136
Medium launch vehicle (MLV).............................. 136
Titan.................................................... 136
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 136
Overview................................................... 136
Items of Special Interest.................................. 142
Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)............... 142
AN/FPS-117 radar beacon replacement...................... 142
Eagle vision............................................. 142
Rivet joint mission trainer (RJMT)....................... 142
Senior scout............................................. 143
Situation awareness data link (SADL) gateway for the
theater air control system (TACS).................... 143
Supply asset tracking system (SATS)...................... 143
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 144
Overview................................................... 144
Items of Special Interest.................................. 149
Automated document conversion system (ADCS).............. 149
Counternarcotics discreet operations radio (CONDOR)...... 149
Patriot advanced capability 3 (PAC-3).................... 149
Portable intelligence collection and relay capability
(PICRC).............................................. 149
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 150
Overview................................................... 150
Items of Special Interest.................................. 152
Chemical agents and munitions destruction................ 152
Chemical stockpile disposal project.................... 152
Chemical stockpile emergency preparedness project
(CSEPP)............................................ 153
Alternative technologies and approaches project........ 153
Non-stockpile chemical materiel project................ 153
Chemical agent identification sets..................... 154
Assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA)........... 154
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 155
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 155
Sections 101-107--Authorization of Appropriations.......... 155
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 155
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority............... 155
Section 112--Increase in Limitation on Number of Bunker
Defeat Munitions that May be Acquired.................. 155
Section 113--Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support
Initiative............................................. 156
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 156
Section 121--Submarine Force Structure..................... 156
Section 122--Virginia Class Submarine Program.............. 156
Section 123--Retention of Configuration of Certain Naval
Reserve Frigates....................................... 156
Section 124--Extension of Multiyear Procurement Authority
for Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers..................... 156
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 157
Section 131--Annual Report on Operational Status of B-2
Bomber................................................. 157
Subtitle E--Joint Programs................................... 157
Section 141--Study of Production Alternatives for the Joint
Strike Fighter Program................................. 157
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 158
OVERVIEW....................................................... 158
Army RDT&E................................................... 161
Overview................................................... 161
Items of Special Interest.................................. 170
Advanced artillery systems............................... 170
Advanced battery technology.............................. 170
Aircrew coordination training............................ 171
Apache Longbow focused modernization program............. 171
Army tactical unmanned aerial vehicles................... 171
Breacher system.......................................... 171
Chinook helicopter modification and improvement.......... 172
Comanche................................................. 172
Combat identification dismounted soldier (CIDDS)......... 173
Combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser............ 173
Common ground station.................................... 173
Communications and networking technologies............... 174
Defense manufacturing technology......................... 174
Emergency preparedness training.......................... 175
Future combat system..................................... 175
Future rotorcraft technologies........................... 176
Guardrail common sensor.................................. 177
Helmet mounted infrared sensor development............... 177
High-energy laser test facility.......................... 177
Hypersonic wind tunnels.................................. 177
Integrated inertial measurement unit-geo-positioning
system............................................... 178
Land information warfare activity........................ 178
Medical errors reduction research........................ 178
Mobile tactical high energy laser........................ 179
National automotive center-university innovative research 179
Passive millimeter wave camera........................... 179
Real-time heart rate variability......................... 179
Semi-automated imagery processor......................... 180
Starstreak............................................... 180
Surveillance control data link (SCDL).................... 180
Thermal fluid based combat feeding system................ 181
Trajectory correctable munitions......................... 181
Volumetrically controlled manufacturing technology....... 181
Navy RDT&E................................................... 182
Overview................................................... 182
Items of Special Interest.................................. 193
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle...................... 193
Advanced anti-radiation guided missile................... 193
Advanced deployable system............................... 194
Advanced technology demonstrations and fleet battle
experiments.......................................... 194
Advanced waterjet propulsor.............................. 195
Aircraft survivability study............................. 195
Aviation depot maintenance technology.................... 196
Aviation modernization plan.............................. 196
Battle force tactical trainer (BFTT)..................... 197
Beartrap................................................. 197
C-2 eight-blade composite propeller system............... 198
Common command and decision system....................... 198
Common towed array....................................... 199
Composite advanced sail development...................... 199
CVNX aircraft carrier design product modeling............ 200
Distributed engineering plant............................ 200
Distributed marine environment forecast system........... 201
DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept
demonstration........................................ 201
Dry chemical fire suppressant............................ 202
E2-C2 rotordome and control surface improvements......... 202
Extended range guided munition........................... 202
F-18..................................................... 203
Fielded system obsolescence, technology insertion and
technology refreshment............................... 204
Fleet health technology and occupational lung disease.... 205
Flight worthy transparent armor system................... 205
High mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS)........... 206
High performance sigma-delta waveform generator.......... 206
Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communication technology...... 206
Hybrid light detection and ranging (LIDAR)/radar
technology........................................... 207
Hyperspectral research................................... 207
Insensitive munitions.................................... 207
Integrated aviation life support systems................. 208
Integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze............... 208
Intermediate modulus carbon fiber and ultra-high thermal
conductivity graphite fibers......................... 208
Joint forces command operational testbed................. 209
Joint helmet mounted cueing system....................... 209
Joint tactical combat training system.................... 210
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly
(LESPA).............................................. 210
Littoral support fast patrol craft....................... 210
Location of global positioning systems (GPS) jammers..... 211
Malaria deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) vaccine.............. 211
Manned reconnaissance systems............................ 211
Marine Corps dragon warrior UAV.......................... 211
Marine mammal research................................... 212
Maritime technology (MARITECH) program................... 212
Mobile electronic warfare support system................. 213
Mobile integrated diagnostic and data analysis system
(MIDDAS)............................................. 213
Multi-function radar/volume search radar and the Navy's
radar roadmap........................................ 213
Multipurpose processor................................... 214
Naval space surveillance................................. 215
Navy mine countermeasures program........................ 215
Advanced sensors for mine countermeasures and
oceanography....................................... 215
AN/AQS-20/X mine hunting sonar......................... 216
Synthetic aperture sonar development for long-term mine
reconnaissance system.............................. 216
Naval modeling and simulation............................ 217
New composite materials for aircraft canopies............ 217
Optical correlation technology for automatic target
recognition.......................................... 218
Optically multiplexed wideband radar beam-forming array.. 218
P-3 modernization program................................ 218
P-3 special mission squadron sensor upgrade.............. 219
Parametric airborne dipping sonar........................ 219
Power node control centers............................... 220
Project M................................................ 220
Radio frequency integration and testing environment...... 221
Remote precision gun..................................... 221
S-3B surveillance system upgrade program................. 222
Ship service fuel cell program........................... 222
Silicon carbide and gallium nitride semiconductor
substrates........................................... 222
Single flux quantum electronics.......................... 223
SSGN Conversion.......................................... 223
Submarine sonar dome window.............................. 225
Supply chain management and development best practices... 225
Surface ship torpedo defense............................. 226
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles........................ 226
Vacuum electronics....................................... 226
Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter
demonstration........................................ 227
Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems.... 228
Air Force RDT&E.............................................. 228
Overview................................................... 228
Items of Special Interest.................................. 239
21st century affordable aircraft thrust demonstration
project.............................................. 239
Aging landing gear life extension........................ 239
Airborne laser........................................... 239
Airborne reconnaissance systems.......................... 240
Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
partnership.......................................... 241
Air Force science and technology......................... 241
Aerospace propulsion................................... 242
Aircrew laser eye protection........................... 242
Ballistic missile technology........................... 243
Combat identification.................................. 243
Composite affordability initiative..................... 243
Low cost launch technology............................. 244
Miniature satellite threat reporting system............ 244
Specialty aerospace metals............................. 244
Upper atmospheric and astronomical research............ 245
Advanced message-oriented data security module (AMODSM).. 245
B-1B link 16 data link................................... 246
B-2 upgrades............................................. 246
B-52 modified miniature receive terminals configuration.. 247
Defense reconnaissance support program................... 247
Discoverer II............................................ 247
Eagle vision............................................. 248
Electronic warfare development........................... 248
Extended range cruise missile (ERCM)..................... 249
Global hawk unmanned aerial vehicle...................... 249
Hyperspectral imagery system............................. 250
Integrated broadcast service............................. 250
Joint ejection seat program.............................. 251
Joint strike fighter..................................... 252
Military strategic and tactical relay (MILSTAR).......... 253
Mobile approach control system........................... 254
Multi-link antenna system................................ 254
Satellite control network................................ 255
Small smart munitions.................................... 255
Space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS-High)............ 256
Space-based infrared system-low (SBIRS-Low).............. 256
Spacelift range system................................... 257
U-2 senior year electro-optic system polarimetry......... 258
Defense Wide RDT&E........................................... 259
Overview................................................... 259
Items of Special Interest.................................. 268
Advanced sensor applications program..................... 268
Ballistic missile defense (BMD).......................... 268
Advanced technology development........................ 269
Liquid surrogate target................................ 269
National missile defense (NMD)......................... 270
Navy theater wide...................................... 271
Russian-American cooperative national missile defense.. 272
Support technology..................................... 272
Wide bandwidth information infrastructure.............. 272
Chemical-biological defense program...................... 273
Chemical and biological defense program initiatives.... 273
Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors 274
Commercial off-the-shelf-receiver development............ 274
Competitive sustainment demonstration.................... 275
Complex systems design................................... 275
Computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis. 275
Computer network security................................ 276
CV-22 Osprey radar improvements.......................... 276
Defense agency science and technology funding............ 276
Biological warfare defense............................. 277
Computing systems and communications technology........ 277
Extensible information systems......................... 278
Nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation
technologies....................................... 278
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive
research............................................. 278
Facial recognition technology............................ 278
High definition displays for military applications....... 278
High energy laser research and development............... 279
Defense-wide high energy laser development............. 279
Free electron laser.................................... 280
Solid state laser...................................... 280
Information technology, superiority and assurance........ 281
Interference with global positioning system.............. 282
MC-130 autonomous landing guidance system................ 282
Medical free electron laser.............................. 283
Microelectromechanical systems sensor development........ 283
National imagery and mapping agency...................... 283
Requirement for ``designated laboratory''................ 284
Science and technology affordability initiative.......... 284
Special operations tactical video system................. 285
Tactical and support aircraft noise reduction............ 285
Texas regional institute for environmental studies....... 286
Thermionics for space power systems...................... 286
TRICARE encounter data system............................ 286
Ultra-wideband radar..................................... 286
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 287
Overview................................................... 287
Items of Special Interest.................................. 289
Central test and evaluation investment program........... 289
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 290
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 290
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 290
Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research......... 290
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 290
Section 211--High Energy Laser Programs.................... 290
Section 212--Management of Space-Based Infrared System-Low. 291
Section 213--Joint Strike Fighter.......................... 291
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................ 291
Section 231--Funding for Fiscal Year 2001.................. 291
Section 232--Sense of Congress Concerning Commitment to
Deploy National Missile Defense........................ 291
Section 233--Reports on Ballistic Missile Threat Posed By
North Korea............................................ 292
Section 234--Plan to Modify Ballistic Missile Defense
Architecture to Cover Intermediate-Range Ballistic
Missile Threats........................................ 292
Section 235--Designation of Airborne Laser Program as a
Program Element of Ballistic Missile Defense Program... 293
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 293
Section 241--Recognition of Those Individuals Instrumental
to Naval Research Efforts During the Period from Before
World War II Through the End of the Cold War........... 293
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 294
OVERVIEW....................................................... 294
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 324
Budget Request Increases..................................... 324
Critical Readiness Accounts................................ 324
Depot maintenance........................................ 324
Real property maintenance................................ 324
Miscellaneous unfunded requirements...................... 324
Mobility enhancement funding............................. 325
Training accounts........................................ 325
Army Cold Weather Clothing................................. 325
Budget Request Reductions.................................... 326
Civilian Personnel Reductions.............................. 326
Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions....................... 326
Headquarters Reductions.................................... 326
Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises................... 327
Other Items of Special Interest.............................. 327
Accountability of Operation and Maintenance Funding........ 327
Environmental Issues......................................... 327
Fines and Penalties........................................ 327
Navy Environmental Leadership Program...................... 328
Intelligence Issues.......................................... 328
Cryptologic Skills Training................................ 328
Defense Foreign Language Program........................... 328
Distributed Common Ground System........................... 329
Eagle Vision Commercial Imagery............................ 329
Integrated Broadcast Service............................... 330
RC-135 and U-2 Operations and Maintenance.................. 330
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues....................... 330
Armed Forces Recreation Centers............................ 330
Lodging Programs........................................... 331
Nonappropriated Fund Support of Official Activities........ 331
Other Issues................................................. 332
Army Apprenticeship Program................................ 332
Army Workload and Performance System....................... 332
Automatic Identification Technology........................ 333
Civilian Air Traffic Controllers........................... 333
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities......... 334
Container Freight Station Operations....................... 334
Core Logistics Capabilities................................ 334
Defense Joint Accounting System............................ 335
Defense Personnel Records Imaging System-Electronics
Military Personnel Records System...................... 336
Department of Defense Civilian Personnel................... 336
Personnel safety......................................... 336
Recruiting and retention................................. 337
Financial Policy........................................... 337
Local School Renovation and Repair......................... 338
Logistics Support Planning................................. 338
Military Affiliate Radio System............................ 339
National Maintenance Program............................... 340
Naval Audit Service........................................ 341
Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS)................. 341
Spare and Repair Parts..................................... 341
Urban Warfare Training..................................... 342
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 342
Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations.................. 342
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 342
Section 302--Working Capital Funds......................... 342
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................. 343
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund....................................... 343
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions......................... 343
Section 311--Payment of Fines and Penalties Imposed for
Environmental Violations............................... 343
Section 312--Necessity of Military Low-Level Flight
Training to Protect National Security and Enhance
Military Readiness..................................... 343
Section 313--Use of Environmental Restoration Accounts to
Relocate Activities from Defense Environmental
Restoration Sites...................................... 343
Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities........................................ 343
Section 321--Use of Appropriated Funds to Cover Operating
Expenses of Commissary Stores.......................... 343
Section 322--Adjustment of Sales Prices of Commissary Store
Goods and Services to Cover Certain Expenses........... 344
Section 323--Use of Surcharges for Construction and
Improvement of Commissary Stores....................... 344
Section 324--Inclusion of Magazines and Other Periodicals
as an Authorized Commissary Merchandise Category....... 344
Section 325--Use of Most Economical Distribution Method for
Distilled Spirits...................................... 345
Section 326--Report on Effects of Availability of Slot
Machines on United States Military Installations
Overseas............................................... 345
Subtitle D--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector
Sources.................................................. 345
Section 331--Inclusion of Additional Information in Reports
to Congress Required before Conversion of Commercial or
Industrial Type Functions to Contractor Performance.... 345
Section 332--Limitation Regarding Navy Marine Corps
Intranet Contract...................................... 345
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education..................... 346
Section 341--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that
Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees............... 346
Section 342--Eligibility Requirements for Attendance at
Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and
Secondary Schools...................................... 346
Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues........................ 347
Section 351--Additional Capabilities of, and Reporting
Requirements for, the Readiness Reporting System....... 347
Section 352--Reporting Requirements Regarding Transfers
from High-Priority Readiness Appropriations............ 347
Section 353--Department of Defense Strategic Plan to Reduce
Backlog in Maintance and Repair of Defense Facilities.. 347
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 348
Section 361--Authority to Ensure Demilitarization of
Significant Military Equipment Formerly Owned by the
Department of Defense.................................. 348
Section 362--Annual Report on Public Sale of Certain
Military Equipment Identified on United States
Munitions List......................................... 348
Section 363--Registration of Certain Information Technology
Systems with Chief Information Officer................. 349
Section 364--Studies and Reports Required as Precondition
to Certain Manpower Reductions......................... 349
Section 365--National Guard Assistance for Certain Youth
and Chartable Organizations............................ 349
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 352
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 352
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 352
Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum
Levels................................................. 352
Section 403--Adjustment to End Strength Flexibility
Authority.............................................. 353
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 353
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 353
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves................................ 353
Section 413--End Strength for Military Technicians (Dual
Status)................................................ 354
Section 414--Increase in Number of Members in Certain
Grades Authorized to Be on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves........................................... 354
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 355
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military
Personnel.............................................. 355
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 358
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 358
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office............. 358
Department of Defense International Student Program at the
Military Colleges........................................ 358
Funding for Recruiting and Retention......................... 359
Homosexual Conduct Briefings................................. 360
Incentives for Overseas Assignments.......................... 360
National Guard Military Technician Overtime Pay.............. 361
Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act.............. 361
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 361
Subtitle A--General Personnel Management Authorities......... 361
Section 501--Authority for Secretary of Defense to Suspend
Certain Personnel Strength Limitations During War or
National Emergency..................................... 361
Section 502--Authority to Issue Posthumous Commissions in
the Case of Members Dying Before Official
Recommendation for Appointment or Promotion is Approved
by Secretary Concerned................................. 362
Section 503--Technical Correction to Retired Grade Rule for
Army and Air Force Officers............................ 362
Section 504--Extension to End of Calendar Year of
Expiration Date for Certain Force Drawdown Transition
Authorities............................................ 362
Section 505--Clarification of Requirements for Composition
of Active-Duty List Selection Boards When Reserve
Officers are Under Consideration....................... 363
Section 506--Voluntary Separation Incentive................ 363
Section 507--Congressional Review Period for Assignment of
Women to Duty on Submarines and for Any Proposed
Reconfiguration or Design of Submarines to Accommodate
Female Crew Members.................................... 363
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Personnel Policy............... 363
Section 511--Exemption from Active-Duty List for Reserve
Officers on Active Duty for a Period of Three Years or
Less................................................... 363
Section 512--Exemption of Reserve Component Medical and
Dental Officers from Counting in Grade Strengths....... 363
Section 513--Continuation of Officers on the Reserve Active
Status List Without Requirement for Application........ 364
Section 514--Authority to Retain Reserve Component
Chaplains and Officers in Medical Specialties Until
Specified Age.......................................... 364
Section 515--Authority for Temporary Increase in Number of
Reserve Component Personnel Serving on Active Duty or
Full-Time National Guard Duty in Certain Grades........ 364
Section 516--Authority for Provision of Legal Services to
Reserve Component Members Following Release from Active
Duty................................................... 364
Section 517--Entitlement to Separation Pay for Reserve
Officers Released from Active Duty Upon Declining
Selective Continuation on Active Duty After Second
Failure of Selection for Promotion..................... 364
Section 518--Extension of Involuntary Civil Service
Retirement Date for Certain Reserve Technicians........ 365
Subtitle C--Education and Training........................... 365
Section 521--College Tuition Assistance Program for Pursuit
of Degrees by Members of the Marine Corps Platoon
Leaders Class Program.................................. 365
Section 522--Review of Allocation of Junior Reserve
Officers Training Corps Units Among the Services....... 365
Section 523--Authority for Naval Postgraduate School to
Enroll Certain Defense Industry Civilians in Specified
Programs Relating to Defense Product Development....... 366
Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards, and Commendations........... 366
Section 531--Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to
Andrew J. Smith for Valor during the Civil War......... 366
Section 532--Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to
Ed W. Freeman for Valor during the Vietnam Conflict.... 366
Section 533--Consideration of Proposals for Posthumous or
Honorary Promotions or Appointments of Members or
Former Members of the Armed Forces and Other Qualified
Persons................................................ 366
Section 534--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Navy
Distinguished Flying Cross to Certain Persons.......... 367
Section 535--Addition of Certain Information to Markers on
Graves Containing Remains of Certain Unknowns from the
U.S.S. ARIZONA Who Died in the Japanese Attack on Pearl
Harbor on December 7, 1941............................. 367
Section 536--Sense of Congress Regarding Final Crew of
U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS.................................... 367
Section 537--Posthumous Advancement of Rear Admiral
(Retired) Husband E. Kimmel and Major General (Retired)
Walter C. Short on Retired Lists....................... 367
Section 538--Commendation of Citizens of Remy, France, for
World War II Actions................................... 367
Subtitle E--Military Justice Matters......................... 368
Section 541--Recognition by States of Military Testamentary
Instruments............................................ 368
Section 542--Probable Cause Required for Entry of Names of
Subjects into Official Criminal Investigative Reports.. 368
Section 543--Collection and Use of DNA Identification
Information from Violent and Sexual Offenders in the
Armed Forces........................................... 368
Section 544--Limitation on Secretarial Authority to Grant
Clemency for Military Prisoners Serving Sentence of
Confinement for Life Without Eligibility for Parole.... 368
Section 545--Authority for Civilian Special Agents of
Military Department Criminal Investigative
Organizations to Execute Warrants and Make Arrests..... 369
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 369
Section 551--Funeral Honors Duty Compensation.............. 369
Section 552--Test of Ability of Reserve Component
Intelligence Units and Personnel to Meet Current and
Emerging Defense Intelligence Needs.................... 369
Section 553--National Guard Challenge Program.............. 369
Section 554--Study of Use of Civilian Contractor Pilots for
Operational Support Missions........................... 370
Section 555--Pilot Program to Enhance Military Recruiting
by Improving Military Awareness of School Counselors
and Educators.......................................... 370
Section 556--Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred by Members
in Connection with Cancellation of Leave on Short
Notice................................................. 370
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 371
OVERVIEW....................................................... 371
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 372
Briefings on Benefits of Military Service.................... 372
Extension of Time Limitation on Use of Reserve Education
Benefits................................................. 373
Improved Basic Allowance for Housing......................... 373
Military Pay Day Every 14 Days............................... 373
Pay Table Reform for Mid-Grade Enlisted Members.............. 374
Reimbursement for Reservists' Travel Expenses................ 374
Reimbursement of Permanent Change of Station Expenses........ 374
Retired Pay Following Reduction in Grade..................... 375
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 375
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 375
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2001.... 375
Section 602--Revised Method for Calculation of Basic
Allowance for Subsistence.............................. 375
Section 603--Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance for
Low-Income Members of the Armed Forces................. 375
Section 604--Calculation of Basic Allowance for Housing for
Inside the United States............................... 376
Section 605--Equitable Treatment of Junior Enlisted Members
in Computation of Basic Allowance for Housing.......... 376
Section 606--Basic Allowance for Housing Authorized for
Additional Members Without Dependents Who Are on Sea
Duty................................................... 376
Section 607--Personal Money Allowance for Senior Enlisted
Members of the Armed Forces............................ 376
Section 608--Allowance for Officers for Purchase of
Required Uniforms and Equipment........................ 377
Section 609--Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for
Members of Precommissioning Programs................... 377
Section 610--Additional Amount Available for Fiscal Year
2001 Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the
United States.......................................... 377
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 377
Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces......................... 377
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered
Nurses and Nurse Anesthetists.......................... 378
Section 613--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment
of Other Bonuses and Special Pays...................... 378
Section 614--Consistency of Authorities for Special Pay for
Reserve Medical and Dental Officers.................... 378
Section 615--Special Pay for Coast Guard Physician
Assistants............................................. 378
Section 616--Special Duty Assignment Pay for Enlisted
Members................................................ 378
Section 617--Revision of Career Sea Pay.................... 378
Section 618--Revision of Enlistment Bonus Authority........ 379
Section 619--Authorization of Retention Bonus for Members
of the Armed Forces Qualified in a Critical Military
Skill.................................................. 379
Section 620--Elimination of Required Congressional
Notification before Implementation of Certain Special
Pay Authority.......................................... 379
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 379
Section 631--Advance Payments for Temporary Lodging of
Members and Dependents................................. 379
Section 632--Additional Transportation Allowance Regarding
Baggage and Household Effects.......................... 379
Section 633--Equitable Dislocation Allowances for Junior
Enlisted Members....................................... 379
Section 634--Authority to Reimburse Military Recruiters,
Senior ROTC Cadre, and Military Entrance Processing
Personnel for Certain Parking Expenses................. 379
Section 635--Expansion of Funded Student Travel for
Dependents............................................. 380
Subtitle D--Retirement and Survivor Benefit Matters.......... 380
Section 641--Increase in Maximum Number of Reserve
Retirement Points That May be Credited in Any Year..... 380
Section 642--Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan
Spousal Consent Requirement............................ 380
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 380
Section 651--Participation in Thrift Savings Plan.......... 380
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 381
OVERVIEW....................................................... 381
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 382
Funding for the Defense Health Program....................... 382
Preventive Health Care Services.............................. 383
Report on Computer-Based Patient Record and Medical Records
Tracking System.......................................... 383
Report on Mandatory Enrollment Program for TRICARE
Beneficaries............................................. 384
Subtitle A--Health Care Services............................. 384
Section 701--Two-Year Extension of Authority for Use of
Contract Physicians at Military Entrance Processing
Stations and Elsewhere Outside Medical Treatment
Facilities............................................. 384
Section 702--Medical and Dental Care for Medal of Honor
Recipients............................................. 384
Section 703--Provision of Domiciliary and Custodial Care
for CHAMPUS Beneficiaries and Certain Former CHAMPUS
Beneficiaries.......................................... 385
Section 704--Demonstration Project for Expanded Access to
Mental Health Counselors............................... 385
Section 705--Teleradiology Demonstration Project........... 385
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program.................................. 386
Section 711--Additional Beneficiaries Under TRICARE Prime
Remote Program in the Continental United States........ 386
Section 712--Elimination of Copayments for Immediate Family 386
Section 713--Modernization of TRICARE Business Practices
and Increased Use of Military Treatment Facilities..... 386
Section 714--Claims Processing Improvements................ 387
Section 715--Prohibition Against Requirement for Prior
Authorization for Certain Referrals; Report on
Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements.............. 388
Section 716--Authority to Establish Special Locality-Based
Reimbursement Rates; Reports........................... 388
Section 717--Reimbursement for Certain Travel Expenses..... 388
Section 718--Reduction of Catastrophic Cap................. 388
Section 719--Report on Protections Against Health Care
Providers Seeking Direct Reimbursement from Members of
the Uniformed Services................................. 389
Section 720--Disenrollment Process for TRICARE Retiree
Dental Program......................................... 389
Subtitle C--Health Care Programs for Medicare-Eligible
Department of Defense Beneficiaries...................... 389
Section 721--Implementation of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy
Program................................................ 389
Section 722--Study on Health Care Options for Medicare-
Eligible Military Retirees............................. 390
Section 723--Extended Coverage Under Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program................................ 390
Section 724--Extension of TRICARE Senior Supplement Program 391
Section 725--Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime
Demonstration Project.................................. 391
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 391
Section 731--Training in Health Care Management and
Administration......................................... 391
Section 732--Study of Accrual Financing for Health Care for
Military Retirees...................................... 391
Section 733--Tracking Patient Safety in Military Medical
Treatment Facilities................................... 391
Section 734--Pharmaceutical Identification Technology...... 392
Section 735--Management of Vaccine Immunization Program.... 392
Section 736--Study on Feasibility of Sharing Biomedical
Research Facility...................................... 392
Section 738--VA/DOD Sharing Agreements for Health Services. 393
TITLE VIII--ACQUISTION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 394
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 394
Procurement of Military Clothing and Clothing-Related Items
by Military Installations in the United States........... 394
Compliance with Applicable Labor Laws in Procurement of
Military Clothing........................................ 394
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 394
Section 801--Extension of Authority for Department of
Defense Acquisition Pilot Programs; Reports Required... 394
Section 802--Technical Data Rights for Items Developed
Exclusively at Private Expense......................... 395
Section 803--Management of Acquisition of Mission-Essential
Software for Major Defense Acquisition Programs........ 395
Section 804--Extension of Waiver Period for Live-Fire
Survivability Testing for MH-47E and MH-60K Helicopter
Modification Programs.................................. 395
Section 805--Three-Year Extension of Authority of Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain
Prototype Projects..................................... 395
Section 806--Certification of Major Automated Information
Systems as to Compliance with Clinger-Cohen Act........ 396
Section 807--Limitations on Procurement of Certain Items... 396
Section 808--Multiyear Services Contracts.................. 396
Section 809--Study on Impact of Foreign Sourcing of Systems
on Long-Term Military Readiness and Related Industrial
Infrastructure......................................... 396
Section 810--Prohibition Against Use of Department of
Defense Funds to Give or Withhold a Preference to a
Marketer or Vendor of Firearms or Ammunition........... 397
Section 811--Study and Report on Practice of Contract
Bundling in Military Construction Contracts............ 397
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANGEMENT....... 398
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 398
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs............. 398
Management Headquarters...................................... 399
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 399
Section 901--Change of Title of Certain Positions in the
Headquarters, Marine Corps............................. 399
Section 902--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and
Support Workforce...................................... 399
Section 903--Clarification of Scope of Inspector General
Authorities under Military Whistleblower Law........... 400
Section 904--Report on Number of Personnel Assigned to
Legislative Liaison Functions.......................... 400
Section 905--Joint Report on Establishment of National
Collaborative Information Analysis Capability.......... 400
Section 906--Organization and Management of Civil Air
Patrol................................................. 401
Section 907--Report on Network Centric Warfare............. 401
Section 908--Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security
Cooperation............................................ 402
Section 909--Department of Defense Regional Centers for
Security Studies....................................... 403
Section 910--Change in Name of Armed Forces Staff College
to Joint Forces Staff College.......................... 403
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 404
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 404
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 404
Overview................................................... 404
Funding.................................................... 405
Items of Special Interest.................................. 405
Air National Guard fighter operations.................... 405
Coastal Patrol equipment procurement..................... 406
Operation Caper Focus.................................... 406
Puerto Rico ROTHR security............................... 406
Southwest border fence................................... 406
OTHER MATTERS.................................................. 406
Quadrennial Defense Review................................... 406
Department of Defense Personnel Security Investigation
Requirements Priorities.................................. 407
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 408
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 408
Section 1001--Transfer Authority........................... 408
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............ 408
Section 1003--Authorization of Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000.................... 408
Department of Defense.................................... 408
Department of Energy..................................... 409
Section 1004--Contingent Repeal of Certain Provisions
Shifting Certain Outlays from One Fiscal Year to
Another................................................ 409
Section 1005--Limitation on Funds for Bosnia and Kosovo
Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2001........... 409
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 410
Section 1011--National Defense Features Program............ 410
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 410
Section 1021--Report on Department of Defense Expenditures
to Support Foreign Counter-Drug Activities............. 410
Section 1022--Report on Tethered Aerostat Radar System..... 410
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 411
Section 1031--Funds for Administrative Expenses Under
Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program.................. 411
Section 1032--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 411
Section 1033--Transfer of Vietnam Era TA-4 Aircraft to
Nonprofit Foundation................................... 411
Section 1034--Transfer of 19th Century Cannon to Museum.... 411
Section 1035--Expenditures for Declassification Activities. 411
Section 1036--Authority to Provide Loan Guarantees to
Improve Domestic Preparedness to Combat Cyberterrorism. 412
Section 1037--V-22 Cockpit Aircraft Voice and Flight Data
Recorders.............................................. 413
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL............... 414
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 414
Section 1101--Employment and Compensation Provisions for
Employees of Temporary Organizations Established by Law
or Executive Order..................................... 414
Section 1102--Restructuring the Restriction on Degree
Training............................................... 414
Section 1103--Continuation of Tuition Reimbursement and
Training for Certain Acquisition Personnel............. 414
Section 1104--Extension of Authority for Civilian Employees
of the Department of Defense to Participate Voluntarily
in Reductions in Force................................. 414
Section 1105--Expansion of Defense Civilian Intelligence
Personnel System Positions............................. 415
Section 1106--Pilot Program for Reengineering the Equal
Employment Opportunity Complaint Process............... 415
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS..................... 416
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 416
Arms Control Implementation.................................. 416
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 416
Section 1201--Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts
to Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities........ 416
Section 1202--Annual Report Assessing Effect of Continued
Operations in the Balkans Region on Readiness to
Execute the National Military Strategy................. 417
Section 1203--Situation in the Balkans..................... 417
Section 1204--Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in
Colombia............................................... 419
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION.......................................... 420
OVERVIEW....................................................... 420
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 421
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia.......................... 421
Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine......................... 422
Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia........ 422
Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia....................... 424
Defense and Military Contacts................................ 426
Elimination of Plutonium Production in Russia................ 426
Fissile Material Processing and Packaging.................... 427
Fissile Material Storage Facility............................ 427
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia................... 428
Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security...................... 428
Other Assessments and Administrative Support................. 429
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 429
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs and Funds..................................... 429
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 430
Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Elimination
of Conventional Weapons................................ 430
Section 1304--Limitations on Use of Funds for Fissile
Material Storage Facility.............................. 430
Section 1305--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission
of Multiyear Plan...................................... 430
Section 1306--Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Arms............ 430
Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds to Support Warhead
Dismantlement Processing............................... 430
Section 1308--Agreement on Nuclear Weapons Storage Sites... 430
Section 1309--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Construction
of Fossil Fuel Energy Plants........................... 430
Section 1310--Audits of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs............................................... 430
Section 1311--Limitation on Use of Funds for Prevention of
Biological Weapons Proliferation in Russia............. 431
TITLE XIV--COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES
FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK...................... 432
OVERVIEW....................................................... 432
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 433
Section 1401--Establishment of Commission.................. 433
Section 1402--Duties of Commission......................... 433
Section 1403--Report....................................... 433
Section 1404--Powers....................................... 433
Section 1405--Commission Procedures........................ 433
Section 1406--Personnel Members............................ 433
Section 1407--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions...... 433
Section 1408--Funding...................................... 433
Section 1409--Termination of the Commission................ 433
TITLE XV--PROVISIONS REGARDING VIEQUES ISLAND, PUERTO RICO....... 434
OVERVIEW....................................................... 434
Section 1501--Conditions on Disposal of Naval Ammunition
Support Detachment, Vieques Island..................... 435
Section 1502--Retention of Eastern Portion of Vieques
Island................................................. 436
Section 1503--Limitations on Military Use of Vieques Island 436
Section 1504--Economic Assistance for Residents of Vieques
Island................................................. 436
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 437
PURPOSE........................................................ 437
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW................................. 437
TITLE XXI--ARMY.................................................. 455
SUMMARY........................................................ 455
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 455
Condition of Barracks to Support Basic Training.............. 455
Improvements to Military Family Housing...................... 455
Planning and Design.......................................... 456
Unspecified Minor Construction............................... 456
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 456
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects................................... 456
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 456
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 456
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 456
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 1999 Project....................... 456
TITLE XXII--NAVY................................................. 457
SUMMARY........................................................ 457
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 457
Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance
Facilities, Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida......... 457
Improvements to Military Family Housing...................... 457
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 457
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects................................... 457
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 458
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 458
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 458
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal
Year 1997 Project at Marine Corps Combat Development
Command, Quantico, Virginia............................ 458
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE........................................... 459
SUMMARY........................................................ 459
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 459
Rome Research Site, New York................................. 459
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 459
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects................................... 459
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 459
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 460
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 460
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES..................................... 461
SUMMARY........................................................ 461
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 461
Forward Operating Locations in Support of Counter-Drug and
Drug Interdiction Activities............................. 461
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 461
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects.............................. 461
Section 2402--Authorization Of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies............................................... 461
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE..... 462
SUMMARY........................................................ 462
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 462
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects................................... 462
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 462
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 463
SUMMARY........................................................ 463
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 463
Planning and Design, Army National Guard..................... 463
Planning and Design, Army Reserve............................ 463
Unspecified Minor Construction, Army Reserve................. 463
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 463
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects.............................. 463
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS.......... 464
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 464
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to be Specified by Law........................ 464
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain
Fiscal Year 1998 Projects.............................. 464
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1997 Projects..................................... 464
Section 2704--Effective Date............................... 464
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS................................. 465
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 465
Military Housing Privatization Initiative.................... 465
Water Quality Issues Affecting Military Installations in the
Area of..................................................
Kaiserslautern, Germany...................................... 465
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 465
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes.......................................... 465
Section 2801--Revision of Limitations on Space by Pay Grade 465
Section 2802--Leasing of Military Family Housing, United
States Southern Command, Miami, Florida................ 466
Section 2803--Alternative Authority for Acquisition and
Improvement of Military Housing........................ 466
Section 2804--Expansion of Definition of Armory to Include
Readiness Centers...................................... 466
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 466
Section 2811--Increase in Threshold for Notice and Wait
Requirements for Real Property Transactions............ 466
Section 2812--Enhancement of Authority of Military
Departments to Lease Non-Excess Property............... 466
Section 2813--Conveyance Authority Regarding Utility
Systems of Military Departments........................ 466
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally....................... 467
Part I--Army Conveyances..................................... 467
Section 2831--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Rock Island
Arsenal, Illinois...................................... 467
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Galesburg, Illinois.................................... 467
Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Winona,
Minnesota.............................................. 467
Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Fort Polk, Louisiana........ 467
Section 2835--Land Conveyance, Fort Pickett, Virginia...... 467
Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey........ 467
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Nike Site 43, Elrama,
Pennsylvania........................................... 468
Section 2838--Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas.............. 468
Section 2839--Land Conveyance, Charles Melvin Price Support
Center, Illinois....................................... 468
Section 2840--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Local Training
Center, Chattanooga, Tennessee......................... 468
Part II--Navy Conveyances.................................... 468
Section 2851--Modification of Authority for Oxnard Harbor
District, Port Hueneme, California, to Use Certain Navy
Property............................................... 468
Section 2852--Modification of Land Conveyance, Marine Corps
Air Station, El Toro, California....................... 469
Section 2853--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Marine Corps Air
Station, Miramar, California........................... 469
Section 2854--Lease of Property, Marine Corps Air Station,
Miramar, California.................................... 469
Section 2855--Lease of Property, Naval Air Station,
Pensacola, Florida..................................... 469
Section 2856--Land Exchange, Marine Corps Recruit Depot,
San Diego, California.................................. 470
Section 2857--Land Exchange, Naval Air Reserve Center,
Columbus, Ohio......................................... 470
Section 2858--Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Center, Tampa,
Florida................................................ 470
Part III--Air Force Conveyances.............................. 470
Section 2861--Land Conveyance, Wright Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio............................................. 470
Section 2862--Land Conveyance, Point Arena Air Force
Station, California.................................... 471
Section 2863--Land Conveyance, Los Angeles Air Force Base,
California............................................. 471
Part IV--Other Conveyances................................... 471
Section 2871--Conveyance of Army and Air Force Exchange
Service Property, Farmers Branch, Texas................ 471
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 471
Section 2881--Retention of Easement Authority to Leased
Parkland, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California 471
Section 2882--Extension of Demonstration Project for
Purchase of Fire, Security, Police, Public Works, and
Utility Services from Local Government Agencies........ 472
Section 2883--Establishment of World War II Memorial on
Guam................................................... 472
Section 2884--Naming of the Army Missile Testing Range at
Kwajalein Atoll as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Defense
Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll........................... 472
Section 2885--Designation of Building at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia, in Honor of Andrew T. McNamara............... 472
Section 2886--Redesignation of the Balboa Naval Hospital,
San Diego, California, in Honor of Bob Wilson, a Former
Member of the House of Representatives................. 472
Section 2887--Sense of Congress Regarding Importance of
Expansion of National Training Center, Fort Irwin,
California............................................. 472
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................... 473
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 473
OVERVIEW....................................................... 473
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 492
Overview................................................... 492
Items of Special Interest.................................. 492
Acceleration of the 94-1 program and restoration of
infrastructure at the Savannah River Site............ 492
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative................. 492
Hanford tank waste remediation system privatization,
phase I.............................................. 494
Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility.................... 494
Nonproliferation and national security................... 495
Worker and community transition.......................... 495
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 496
Items of Special Interest.................................. 496
Budget Structure of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) Campaigns...................... 496
Advanced Design and Production Technology (ADAPT)...... 497
Advanced radiography................................... 497
Defense computing and modeling......................... 498
Laser development...................................... 500
Pit manufacturing readiness............................ 501
Tritium readiness...................................... 502
Construction projects.................................... 502
Defense programs requirements process.................... 502
Department of Energy Reorganization Issues............... 503
Directed stockpile work.................................. 505
Stockpile evaluation................................... 505
Stockpile maintenance.................................. 505
Program direction for defense programs................... 506
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)........ 506
Operations of facilities............................... 507
Special projects....................................... 507
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 508
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 508
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 508
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management............................................. 508
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 508
Section 3104--Defense Facilities Closure Projects.......... 508
Section 3105--Defense Environmental Management
Privatization.......................................... 508
Section 3106--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 508
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 508
Section 3121--Reprogramming................................ 508
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects............. 508
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects.............. 508
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority...................... 509
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
Design................................................. 509
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and
Construction Activities................................ 509
Section 3127--Availability of Funds........................ 509
Section 3128--Authority Relating to Transfer of Defense
Environmental Management Funds......................... 509
Section 3131--Funding for Termination Costs for Tank Waste
Remediation System Environmental Project, Richland,
Washington............................................. 509
Section 3132--Enhanced Cooperation Between National Nuclear
Security Administration and Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization........................................... 510
Section 3133--Required Contents of Future-Years Nuclear
Security Program to be Submitted with Fiscal Year 2002
Budget and Limitation on Obligation of Certain Funds
Pending Submission of that Program..................... 510
Section 3134--Limitation on Obligation of Certain Funds.... 510
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 511
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 511
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board...................... 511
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 511
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 511
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE......................... 512
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 512
Section 3301--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds........... 512
Section 3302--Use of Excess Titanium Sponge in the National
Defense Stockpile to Manufacture Department of Defense
Equipment.............................................. 512
TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION............................. 513
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 513
Merchant Marine Academy...................................... 513
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 513
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 2001.............................................. 513
Section 3402--Extension of Period For Disposal of Obsolete
Vessels From the National Reserve Fleet................ 513
Section 3403--Authority to Convey National Defense Reserve
Fleet Vessel, GLACIER.................................. 513
Departmental Data................................................ 514
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 514
Military Construction Authorization Request.................... 515
Committee Position............................................... 515
Communications From Other Committees............................. 515
Fiscal Data...................................................... 521
Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 521
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...................... 521
Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 542
Oversight Findings............................................... 542
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 542
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 542
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 542
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 551
Additional Views................................................. 690
Additional views of John M. Spratt, Jr......................... 690
Additional views of Steven T. Kuykendall....................... 694
Additional views of Baron P. Hill.............................. 695
Additional views of Joseph R. Pitts, John M. Spratt, Jr........ 697
Additional views of Robert A. Underwood, Neil Abercrombie,
Solomon P. Ortiz, Thomas H. Allen, Silvestre Reyes........... 698
Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Lane Evans, Neil
Abercrombie, Patrick J. Kennedy, Thomas H. Allen, Adam Smith,
Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert E. Andrews, Mike Thompson.......... 700
Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Neil Abercrombie, Ike
Skelton, Robert A. Underwood, Patrick J. Kennedy, Robert A.
Brady........................................................ 701
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-616
======================================================================
FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
_______
May 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Spence, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4205]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense and
for military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause of
the bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in
the reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 4205. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
PURPOSE
The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for procurement and for research, development, test
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2001: (a) the
personnel strength for each active duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4)
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for the Department of Energy national security
programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; and (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2001 for the Maritime Administration.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The
bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts
provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following
categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement;
research, development, test and evaluation; operation and
maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and
military construction and family housing. The bill also
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and
the Maritime Administration.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The President requested budget authority of $305.3 billion
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2001.
Of this amount, the President requested $291.0 billion for the
Department of Defense (including $8.0 billion for military
construction and family housing) and $13.1 billion for
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall level of $309.9 billion
in budget authority. This amount is consistent with the
discretionary defense spending limitations imposed by the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and it represents an increase of
approximately $21.1 billion from the amount authorized for
appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). Overall, the committee's
recommendation is consistent with the amounts established in
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001
for the national defense budget function.
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
The following table provides a summary of the amounts
requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the
bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of
Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how
the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for
the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the
budget authority implications of committee action, the table
reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for
proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
is the first defense authorization bill prepared for the new
millennium. It reflects the committee's view of, and commitment
to, the policies, programs, and priorities required to maintain
U.S. military preeminence in the 21st century.
The committee bill authorizes $309.9 billion for defense
during fiscal year 2001--an addition of $4.5 billion to the
Administration's defense budget request. Although this bill
continues the trend of adding to the Administration's defense
budget request, the committee remains troubled by the mismatch
between requirements, forces, and resources that continues to
exist and will remain, even with the increases contained in
this bill.
In the committee's view, the public debate over the
adequacy of U.S. defense funding has turned an important
corner. In recent years, efforts to increase defense have
encountered skepticism and outright opposition by an
Administration that came into office believing that defense
could be reduced substantially without risk to the national
security. The end of the Cold War was accompanied by annual
real decreases in defense spending, as the ``peace dividend''
was applied to other priorities. There now appears to be a
general consensus that U.S. defense spending has fallen too far
too fast. These real decreases have resulted in significant
problems in readiness, equipment modernization, and quality of
life for U.S. service personnel, and a significant overall
decline in U.S. military capability. This year, the committee
has again sought to address the most critical shortfalls in
these areas by increasing funding above the Administration's
budget request.
U.S. Strategy for the New Millennium
U.S. military strategy continues to be guided by the tenets
outlined in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR,
building upon its predecessor, the 1993 Bottom-Up Review,
postulated that the sizing and composition of U.S. military
forces should be based on the requirement to fight two nearly
simultaneous major theater wars. While the committee believes
that the two major theater war standard has been a realistic
and useful planning tool, the QDR was a budget-driven exercise,
rather than a strategy-driven one. Even so, the defense
resources historically requested by the Administration have
never been adequate to execute the strategy without accepting a
greater than prudent level of risk.
Testifying before the committee on October 21, 1999, the
Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps service chiefs each stated
that they lacked the capabilities required of a true ``two
major theater war'' military force. Army Chief of Staff General
Eric Shinseki declared that the Army could execute the two
major theater war strategy only with ``high risk.'' In
subsequent testimony on February 10, 2000, General Shinseki
stated, ``You measure that risk in national treasure, lives,
and expended dollars.'' Former Secretary of Defense James
Schlesinger told the committee on February 8, 2000, ``The
simple reality today is that we cannot fight two MRCs [major
regional contingencies] more or less simultaneously.'' Even
former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who oversaw the
Clinton Administration's early defense efforts, testified
before the committee, ``We do not have a capability of fighting
two [major theater wars] at the same time. For one thing, we do
not have enough airlift and sealift to go to two places at
once.''
The next Administration will have an ability, through the
QDR process, to place its imprint on the strategy that will
guide the level and composition of U.S. military forces in the
new millennium. The committee expects that the next QDR, due
out in September 2001, will be strategy-based and not budget
constrained. The committee has long believed that the level of
resources necessary for defense must flow from an assessment of
U.S. strategy, existing and emerging threats, and the force
levels required to deal with those threats. Under this
Administration, the reverse has been true. Anticipated budget
levels have driven the sizing and composition of U.S. forces
and the strategy that can be implemented with those force
levels. This approach stands sound national security planning
on its head.
The committee's approach again this year has been guided by
an effort to develop a defense budget that is more responsive
to the post-Cold War threats faced by the United States and
commensurate with America's global responsibilities--and, in so
doing, to ensure that U.S. forces can successfully execute
their missions at the lowest possible level of risk.
Maintaining America's Military Preeminence
In its Phase I report last fall on the emerging global
security environment, the United States Commission on National
Security/21st Century reported that the United States can
expect to confront a variety of new and asymmetric threats in
the next several decades that will pose significant challenges
to U.S. security. These threats include the spread of ballistic
missiles and weapons of mass destruction, information warfare,
terrorism, and the use by other states of space for military
purposes. According to the commission, ``threats to American
security will be more diffuse, harder to anticipate, and more
difficult to neutralize than ever before. Deterrence will not
work as it once did; in many cases it may not work at all.''
In its Phase II report, issued in April 2000, the
commission concluded, ``The maintenance of America's strength
is a long-term commitment and cannot be assured without
conscious, dedicated effort.'' This places a premium on
ensuring that America's armed forces are sufficiently
resourced, manned, and equipped, to successfully confront
emerging threats. This fundamental principle has guided the
committee's approach to the defense budget for the past six
years. The committee agrees with the commission's conclusion
that without a sustained defense effort, the United States
``will find its power reduced, its interests challenged even
more than they are today, and its influence eroded.'' Secretary
Schlesinger echoed this point in testimony before the committee
on February 8, 2000, when he stated, ``The United States simply
cannot continue to play the global leadership role envisioned
by the current national security strategy without a substantial
increase in defense spending. . . . We are resting on our
laurels as the sole superpower,'' he stated, and warned that
without sustained increases in defense, ``we are likely to see
a train wreck.''
Unfortunately, in the past year, additional strains have
been imposed on the U.S. military, as the armed forces continue
to be asked to do more with less. This reality has again called
into question the armed forces' ability to carry out the
national military strategy postulated in the QDR. One year ago,
U.S. forces led NATO's Operation Allied Force campaign against
Yugoslavia. For the Air Force, this operation was the
equivalent of a major theater war. The 78-day military campaign
exposed serious strains within the U.S. military, illuminating
problems that have resulted from underfunding and over-
extending the military. It also led to the second major
peacekeeping operation involving U.S. forces in the Balkans in
five years. Like the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, the NATO-
led Kosovo peacekeeping operation is of indefinite duration and
threatens to involve the United States in an ever-deepening
quagmire. The requirements of peacekeeping pose significant
burdens on U.S. forces that detract from their primary
warfighting mission. As a result, readiness has declined,
equipment has been severely strained, and quality of life has
suffered.
The committee recognizes that the United States has global
interests and responsibilities. However, the increasing use of
the armed forces for humanitarian and civil support missions
abroad diminishes the military's capacity to respond to a
significant conflict or crisis. The U.S. armed forces were
employed overseas more times in the past decade than in the
previous 45 years. Since 1989, the Army has participated in 35
major deployments, including a significant number of
peacekeeping missions. During the same period, the Army,
including its Reserve Components, reduced its force structure
by more than 34 percent. Continued high operating tempos risk
bending the force to the breaking point. The employment of U.S.
military forces should be selective and based on a pragmatic
calculation of the risks and benefits to U.S. national
security. In establishing the funding priorities in this year's
bill, the committee is again guided by this fundamental
principle.
The Administration's Defense Budget Request
The President's defense budget request for fiscal year 2001
reflects the first significant real increase in defense funding
in a decade and, unlike in previous years, does not appear to
be premised on questionable economic assumptions, assumed
savings, and outlay gimmicks. In submitting its proposed
budget, the Administration appears to recognize that quality of
life, readiness, and modernization shortfalls are real, that
they have real-world implications, and that increased defense
spending is necessary. However, as Secretary of Defense William
Cohen testified before the committee on February 9, 2000, ``One
budgetary year, one submission or two submissions of real
growth increase does not a military make. It's going to take
sustained commitment over the years.''
Unfortunately, despite the increases proposed by the
President this year, serious mismatches between strategy,
forces, and resources continue to exist. Over the past eight
years, the Administration's cumulative defense budget requests
have fallen more than $300 billion short of even covering the
costs of inflation relative to the fiscal year 1993 defense
spending levels it inherited--spending levels that already
reflected significant cutbacks resulting from President Bush's
post-Cold War downsizing of the U.S. military.
Although U.S. military strategy remains essentially
unchanged from that articulated in the QDR, the committee
believes that the Administration's current and planned levels
of defense funding are insufficient to carry out that strategy.
The committee believes that the United States will need to
invest significantly more resources in order to maintain even
current military capabilities. As Secretary Schlesinger
testified before the committee on February 8, 2000, ``We cannot
maintain the present force structure and reequip the forces on
the present budget levels or the prospective budget levels. . .
. The simple reality is that we cannot sustain those forces.
This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of simple
arithmetic. . . .'' The committee has sought repeatedly to
provide additional resources for defense that would address the
most serious deficiencies that exist.
Despite significant congressional increases to the defense
budget last year, the service chiefs testified before the
committee in October 1999 to having at least $9 billion in
critical unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2000, excluding
the unbudgeted costs of Kosovo operations. Few, if any, of
these shortfalls were addressed in the fiscal year 2000
supplemental submitted with the budget request. This led the
House to support a significant increase to the Administration's
supplemental request. In testimony before the committee earlier
this year, the service chiefs identified nearly $16 billion in
unfunded military requirements. Since last year, their five-
year estimate of shortfalls has increased from $38 billion to
$84 billion. As General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff,
testified, ``there is still a mismatch between the resources we
have and the requirements we may face.''
In a recent report, the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) concluded, ``A substantial defense
strategy-resources mismatch . . . already exists. It is
profound. It has been ongoing for some time and will take years
to overcome. It is reaching crisis proportions and requires
immediate attention.'' With this in mind, the committee has
sought to address in this year's budget the most serious
aspects of this mismatch as they relate to readiness,
modernization, and quality of life.
Restoring Readiness
Restoring military readiness is a key priority for the
committee, as U.S. military readiness is essential to securing
America's future as the world's sole superpower. In recent
years, readiness has suffered as a result of high operations
tempo resulting from the high pace of unscheduled contingency
deployments around the world.
Historically, the Administration has sought to pay for
these deployments by raiding critical readiness accounts. In
addition, near-term readiness has been purchased at the expense
of future modernization. Admiral Jay Johnson, Chief of Navy
Operations, told the committee in October 1999 that ``fiscal
constraints force us too often to choose between near-term
readiness and future modernization and recapitalization.''
General James Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps, stated,
``We have sacrificed our procurement accounts to assist in
meeting the growing costs of keeping our aging equipment and
weapons `ready.' ''
Unfortunately, the Administration's fiscal year 2001
defense budget request contains few if any increases to
readiness accounts and falls well short of addressing the
serious readiness problems that exist. Moreover, current budget
projections indicate that funding for critical readiness needs
will decline next year. Existing readiness problems include a
shortage of spare parts, aging equipment, decaying
infrastructure, growing equipment and facilities' backlogs,
insufficient training, and personnel shortages. According to
Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan, the overall
combat readiness of the Air Force has declined by 26 percent
since 1996.
The committee finds this situation troubling, particularly
in light of the fact that the Administration has at long last
acknowledged that serious readiness shortfalls exist. In
testifying on the fiscal year 2001 budget request on February
9, 2000, General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, acknowledged that even recent funding increases ``will
not guarantee the levels of readiness needed to significantly
reduce risk in executing the National Military Strategy.''
Over the past five years, the Congress has added more than
$7 billion to the Administration's budget requests to fund day-
to-day operations, training, equipment and facility
maintenance, and spare parts. The committee bill continues this
trend by adding significant additional resources for critical
readiness priorities.
Equipping the Force
For the United States to remain the world's preeminent
military power, additional investment in the development and
procurement of modern technology and equipment is essential.
Our men and women in uniform cannot be expected to fight and
win the nation's wars in the 21st century solely with equipment
developed and acquired in the 20th century.
Although this year's budget request increases funding for
research, development, testing, and evaluation for the first
time in five years, important shortfalls remain in these
critical accounts. In particular, additional efforts are
required in the area of national and theater missile defenses.
The committee budget reflects the committee's historically
strong support for the development of technologies that could
be deployed to protect the American homeland from the real and
growing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles
and the weapons of mass destruction they carry.
The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2001
meets, for the first time, the Administration's own target of
providing $60 billion for the procurement of equipment
essential to a modern military. However, this goal was attained
through the use of innovative accounting, such as including
submarine overhaul funds in the procurement accounts for the
first time.
Despite meeting this milestone, the committee is troubled
by the fact that the $60.3 billion request is $1.5 billion
below what the Administration projected the request would be
one year ago. This is difficult to comprehend in an overall
defense budget characterized by real spending growth.
The committee notes that the military of 2000 is continuing
to live off the equipment investment decisions made almost two
decades earlier. The defense build-up that occurred under
President Reagan has served the nation well. However, the force
that resulted from this build-up is precisely the one being
worn out as a result of extensive operational deployments and
inadequate resourcing. As Secretary Schlesinger told the
committee, the U.S. military continues to live off and wear out
the ``capital'' of the late Cold War.
During its examination of the Administration's budget
request, the committee heard testimony from a variety of
witnesses, including former Department of Defense officials,
who testified that the Administration's procurement budget was
insufficient to modernize and equip the current QDR force well
into the 21st century. The CSIS report estimated that ``DOD
procurement budgets will need to average $164 billion
annually'' over the next 10 years ``to provide for steady and
continued modernization and replacement of the QDR force. . .
.'' Other estimates have suggested that the current procurement
budget is underfunded by $25 billion to $50 billion. Former
Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, in Senate testimony,
stated, ``Even though we got to $60 billion in our
modernization budget, we're still not really making up for the
hole that we dug for ourselves during . . . the second half of
the '80s and the '90s.'' Even Secretary Perry testified before
the committee that procurement is underfunded. ``My own
judgment is it probably needs to be perhaps $70 to $80
billion,'' he declared.
Over the past five years, the committee has added nearly
$18 billion to the Administration's procurement budget requests
and this bill adds another $2.0 billion to the procurement
accounts largely to meet the most critical unfunded
modernization requirements identified by the service chiefs.
Keeping Faith With Our Military Personnel
Ensuring a decent quality of life for military personnel
and their families remains central to the committee's efforts
to revitalize the all-volunteer U.S. armed forces. America's
military is only as good as the people who serve in it.
Recruiting and retaining top-notch personnel remains a key
committee priority in this year's bill.
In recent years, each of the military services has
encountered difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified
personnel. With this in mind, the committee bill makes a series
of improvements to the pay, allowances, benefits, and living
conditions of American military personnel that significantly
enhance the quality of life for them and their families. The
committee's actions follow up on last year's initiatives taken
by the Congress with respect to pay raises, pay table reform,
military retirement benefits, basic allowance for housing,
special pay and retention bonuses, and the military Thrift
Savings Plan.
In particular, the committee bill removes the barriers to
an effective military healthcare system by restoring access to
prescription drug benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees,
reduces out-of-pocket costs for service personnel participating
in the TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote programs, and
expands the coverage provided under this program to family
members. Moreover, the bill allows TRICARE reimbursements to be
tailored to local area costs and allows reimbursement for
travel expenses incurred resulting from long-distance referrals
for medical care. The committee bill also makes a number of
management initiatives that are expected to save the Defense
Health Program over $500 million, which can be reinvested in
benefits, instead of being squandered on administration. The
committee's actions will result in improved access, portability
of benefit, and increased savings to U.S. service personnel for
medical care.
In short, the committee bill fulfills the promise to make
continued improvements in compensation and health care programs
begun in last year's National Defense Authorization Act. In
addition, the committee bill includes a provision to eliminate
the statutory requirement that service members pay for 15
percent of housing costs from their own pockets, and to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase the basic
allowance for housing rates while reducing out-of-pocket
housing expenses for military members to zero by fiscal year
2005.
Military healthcare, morale, welfare, and recreation
programs, as well as the quality of facilities in which
military personnel live and work, also have a tangible effect
on service members, their families, and career decisions.
Unfortunately, the Administration's budget request
significantly underfunds military construction and healthcare
improvements. The committee bill goes a long way toward
improving the quality of life for U.S. military personnel and
their families.
The Committee Bill: Investing for the 21st Century
Over the past five years, the Congress has added nearly $50
billion to the Administration's proposed defense budgets. These
increases were necessary, but not sufficient. They have helped
stop the hemorrhaging of America's defenses, but restoring U.S.
military capability to that required by U.S. commitments and
national interests requires more. While the committee
recognizes that additional defense investments are required,
there is no question that U.S. national security would be worse
off had the committee and the Congress not acted in a
responsible manner to address the military's most pressing
problems.
Modernizing and maintaining today's military forces,
following on the heels of a decade of real decline in defense
budgets, will require the kind of sustained commitment and
investment in the years ahead that took place in the early
1980s. Some may argue that the nation cannot afford such an
investment. In the committee's view, what the nation cannot
afford is another decade, like the last, of declining defense
budgets and shrinking military forces if the United States is
to remain a superpower able to promote and protect its global
interests.
It is with this reality in mind that the committee has
crafted a defense budget designed to provide our service
personnel with the best tools our country can produce to enable
them to defend our nation's people, interests, and values. The
committee bill represents the minimum funding necessary to
accomplish that goal. Although a greater level of investment in
America's security will be necessary over the coming years if
the nation is to be secure from the range of threats it will
likely confront, this bill is a necessary first step toward
ensuring that America's military can meet the challenges that
lie ahead, and ensure the safety and security of all Americans,
well into the new millennium.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 results from extensive
hearings that began on February 9, 2000 and that were completed
on March 23, 2000. The full committee conducted 6 sessions. In
addition, a total of 27 sessions were conducted by five
different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on
various titles of the bill.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
In October 1995, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
first advised the Secretary of Defense that in order to
recapitalize the U.S. armed forces after a decade of ever-
decreasing defense procurement budgets, $60 billion would be
required annually and should be achieved by fiscal year 1998.
Over four years after this pronouncement and three years after
its subsequent endorsement by the 1997 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR), the fiscal year 2001 budget request finally
reached that level, although it is $1.5 billion below what was
forecast at the time the fiscal year 2000 budget was submitted
to the Congress one year ago--the sixth consecutive year in
which this situation has occurred. Consequently, it is not
surprising that the service chiefs continue to lament that many
of their modernization needs are going unmet. What is
surprising is the fact that, notwithstanding these unmet needs,
the future years defense program similarly forecasts reductions
to the procurement budgets in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 from
those made a year ago while, at the same time, prominent former
Department of Defense (DOD) leaders in the current
Administration advocate large increases to these budgets.
For example, former Secretary of Defense, William Perry,
testified before the committee earlier this year that,
``Procurement proposed to you in this budget is $60 billion in
round figures. My own judgment is it probably needs to be
perhaps $70 to $80 billion . . .'' Also, in testimony before
the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee
just prior to his resignation in March, former Deputy Secretary
of Defense, John Hamre, noted, ``Even though we got to $60
billion in our modernization budget, we're still not really
making up for the hole that we dug for ourselves during the
'90s. . . . actually the second half of the '80s and the '90s.
And we're going to have to do a better job later on. This is
where people said, `Well what will it cost to do that?' I don't
believe it's $100 billion a year to do that, but I think it's
in the $10 billion to $15 billion more a year for procurement
in order to start getting out of that hole.''
Having added nearly $18 billion to the procurement budget
requests of the past five years, the committee obviously shares
the views of the two former senior DOD officials. However,
during most of this period the committee has found itself to be
seriously hampered in advocating a dramatically larger
modernization budget by a lack of support from the DOD civilian
leadership--including those individuals who now have testified
that, indeed, increased procurement funding is required.
Consequently, it has been unable to sustain the healthy $5 to
$6 billion adds to the procurement accounts that it made in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Nevertheless, fiscal year 2001
marks the sixth consecutive year the committee has increased
the President's procurement budget, and the $2.6 billion added
has again been largely devoted to funding equipment for which,
according to the service chiefs, requirements have not been
met.
The committee continues to strongly believe that the
resources provided to the Department to carry out its national
security strategy of preparing to win two nearly simultaneous
major theater wars is inadequate. If this strategy remains
intact following the fiscal year 2001 QDR, then it is
imperative that the next Administration provide adequate
resources to modernize our armed forces from the outset and
sustain these resources for as long as required. As stated by
former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger in his testimony
to the committee this year, ``The United States simply cannot
continue to play the global leadership role envisioned by the
current national security strategy without a substantial
increase in defense spending. . . . We cannot maintain the
present force structure and reequip the forces on the present
budget levels or the prospective budget levels.''
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,323.3 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,542.8 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AH-64 modifications
The budget request contained $18.5 million for AH-64
modifications but included no funds to continue procurement of
the oil debris detection system (ODDS) or the vibration
management enhancement program (VMEP).
The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts
aircrews to the presence of metal chips in engines and
propeller gear boxes, which allows flights to be terminated
prior to catastrophic failure of critical components. The
system also permits the clearing of smaller particles that
routinely accumulate in engine oil and cause false impending
engine failure alarms resulting in unnecessary termination of
aircraft missions and costly engine diagnostics.
The VMEP is an Army National Guard (ARNG) effort currently
directed toward resolving vibration management problems on the
ARNG's AH-64 Apache fleet, but the committee understands the
technology is also applicable to the UH-60 Blackhawk. The
committee continues to support the VMEP because of its belief
that such on-board diagnostic capabilities contribute
significantly to both aircrew safety and improved aircraft
reliability.
Since the ODDS, which has been successfully integrated into
other Department of Defense aircraft, both reduces aircraft
maintenance costs and enhances aircrew safety, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million to incorporate the ODDS
on AH-64 Apaches. The committee also recommends an increase of
$7.0 million to continue procurement of VMEP systems for the
ARNG Apache fleet and to transition this technology to the
Blackhawk.
In total, the committee recommends $30.5 million for AH-64
modifications, an increase of $12.0 million.
Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)
The budget request contained no funds to procure ARL
aircraft. The ARL supports intelligence collection requirements
for forward-deployed force projection, operations other-than-
war, and mid-intensity conflicts.
The committee understands that the final ARL aircraft
validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council remains
unfunded and is required to replace the less capable ARL-
imagery intelligence (I) aircraft lost in South America in
1999. The ARL-M possesses integrated imagery intelligence,
communications intelligence, a moving target indicator and
synthetic aperture radar; consequently, it offers a broader
intelligence collection capability than the ARL-I aircraft.
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified a $31.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001 for this replacement aircraft. In support of this
requirement, the committee recommends $31.0 million for one
ARL-M replacement aircraft.
Airborne communications
The budget request contained no funds to continue
procurement of the AN/ARC-220 aviation high frequency radios,
which provide secure voice and data communications capability
between Army helicopters flying nap-of-the-earth missions and
beyond-line-of-sight aviation tactical operations centers.
The committee notes that the Task Force Hawk after action
report identified the lack of such capability in AH-64 Apache
attack helicopters as a major deficiency for conducting long-
range strike missions. The committee understands that the
budget request will result in a break in the production line.
The committee further notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified a $31.8 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001 for AH-64 Apache and OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter
radios.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $31.8
million to ensure the fielding of radios for both AH-64 Apache
attack helicopters and OH-58D Kiowa Warriors and to prevent a
production line break.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of ASE.
The Aircraft Survivability Equipment Trainer (ASET) IV is a
ground-based, mobile aviation threat emitter simulation and
training system which enables both fixed and rotary wing
aviators to recognize surface-to-air-missile (SAM) and anti-
aircraft artillery threats in order to employ the correct
aircraft evasive maneuvers. ASET IV systems are currently
fielded at major training centers throughout the United States
and Germany and require that an aircraft have a fully
operational ASE suite of sensors on board for training.
Congress added $7.4 million in fiscal year 1998, $6.4
million in fiscal year 1999, and $12.5 million in fiscal year
2000 for ASET IV upgrades and notes that the necessity of this
training device was a subject of discussion in the Task Force
Hawk After Action Report. However, additional validated
requirements exist and several systems in their present
configuration still lack the capability to simulate the most
current infrared (IR) and SAM threats, thereby limiting aircrew
training. The committee believes this situation is inconsistent
with the Army's ``train as you fight'' concept.
Consistent with its past actions, and based on the Army's
requirement for forces to train in realistic threat
environments, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million for upgrading ASET IV systems with current IR SAM
threat simulators.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications
The budget request contained $4.5 million to procure ASE
modifications but included no funds for AN/AVR-2A laser
detecting sets (LDS). The LDS is the only device in the Army
capable of providing warning to helicopter crews when they have
been illuminated by a laser-targeted weapon. It detects,
identifies, and characterizes threats 360-degrees-around and
plus-or-minus 45 degrees above-and-below an aircraft.
The committee continues to be concerned with the growing
laser threat to helicopter aircrews and notes the limited
fielding of this system to force package oneaircraft only. The
committee also notes the identification by the Army Chief of Staff of
an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to complete LDS ``A'' kit
installation on AH-64A Apaches, AH-64D Apache Longbows, and MH-47D/E
and MH-60K/L Special Operations Aircraft as well as to prevent a
production line break.
Based on a growing laser threat to Army attack and special
operations aircraft and its desire to extend fielding of this
system beyond force package one units, the committee recommends
an increase of $20.0 million for procurement of AN/AVR-2A LDS A
kits.
CH-47 Chinook/UH-60 Blackhawk crashworthy fuel tanks
The budget request contained $117.1 million for
modifications to CH-47 Chinooks and $3.0 million for
modifications to UH-60 Blackhawks but included no funds for the
procurement of CH-47 internal crashworthy fuel tanks or UH-60
external crashworthy fuel tanks for Army National Guard (ARNG)
units.
The committee understands that both the UH-60's external
fuel tanks and the CH-47's internal fuel tanks are subject to
rupture in the event of a crash, posing a safety risk to flight
crews and passengers. Since current battlefield flight
scenarios require these helicopters to fly long-range missions
into hostile environments, the committee believes that extended
range, crashworthy fuel tanks are critical to the safety and
survivability of these aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million to continue upgrading ARNG CH-47s with internal
crashworthy fuel tanks and $9.0 million to begin procurement of
external crashworthy fuel tanks for ARNG UH-60s.
Helicopter crashworthy seats
The committee is concerned about improving the safety
performance of Army helicopter seats. While existing pilot and
the co-pilot seats offer some protection in the event of a hard
impact in a crash, passenger and troop seats offer minimal or
no protection from the acceleration forces created by such a
crash, resulting in fatalities and serious injury of soldiers.
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the
Department of the Army to include funds in its fiscal year 2002
budget request for the UH-60 Blackhawk and CH-47 Chinook
helicopters to begin procurement of passenger and troop
compartment crashworthy seats, which can provide protection for
a majority of expected survivable crashes.
TH-67 Creek
The budget request contained no funds to procure TH-67
Creek training helicopters.
The committee notes that a shortfall in visual flight,
instrument flight, and basic combat skills training helicopters
will occur with the anticipated retirement of Vietnam-era UH-1
and OH-58 A/C aircraft as outlined in the draft fiscal year
2000 Army Aviation Modernization Plan. The committee
understands that the Army does not intend to replace these
retiring aircraft due to affordability concerns. However, the
committee also notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified a $35.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001 for 27 TH-67s.
Based on the need to replace the aging Huey and OH-58 A/C
fleet as soon as possible and the need to provide quality
training for Army aviators, the committee recommends an
increase of $24.0 million for 19 TH-67 helicopters.
UH-60 Blackhawk
The budget request contained $64.7 million for the
procurement of six UH-60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the
Army National Guard (ARNG) but included no funds for UH-60Q
enhanced medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) helicopters or Firehawk
conversion kits for the ARNG. The Blackhawk is the Army's
primary utility helicopter for air assault, general support and
aero medical evacuation missions.
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified a $196.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001 for the procurement of 20 additional Blackhawks for the
ARNG in recognition of a shortfall that has persisted for a
number of years in ARNG units. The committee also notes that
the UH-60Q MEDEVAC helicopter is the number one near-term
medical modernization program for the Army and provides
enhanced medical evacuation and treatment of six litter or
seven ambulatory patients in a state-of-the-art medical
treatment cabin interior. Finally, the committee notes that the
Firehawk conversion kit, which enables a UH-60 to carry up to
1000 gallons of water in the under fuselage tank and fully
refill via a snorkel system in approximately one minute after
dropping its payload on a fire, greatly enhances the ARNG's
ability to support forest firefighting requirements.
Consistent with its actions in prior fiscal years, the
committee recommends an increase of $27.9 million to procure
three additional UH-60L Blackhawks and $40.2 million to procure
three UH-60Q MEDEVAC variants. The committee also recommends
$3.0 million to procure two Firehawk conversion kits for the
ARNG.
In total, the committee recommends $135.8 million for the
UH-60 helicopter, an increase of $71.1 million.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,295.7 million for Missile
Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,367.7 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) system summary
The budget request contained $15.0 million for ATAMCS Block
IA missile production support costs, but included no funds to
procure ATACMS Block IV missiles. The ATACMS is a surface-to-
surface, global positioning system-guided missile for deep-
strike attacks against tactical surface-to-surface and surface-
to-air missile sites, logistics elements, and command, control,
communications complexes.
The committee is aware of the ATACMS Block IV upgrade that
will incorporate Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response
warheads into 51 ATACMS Block IA missiles. This warhead upgrade
is designed to limit collateral damage when used against
targets in urban environments and is a direct outgrowth of the
Army's inability to conduct deep strike missions against such
targets with its existing ATACMS missile inventory during
Operation Allied Force.
The committee believes that the Army should have the
capability to provide joint force commanders with a surface-to-
surface deep strike option, which produces limited collateral
damage in urban environments. Therefore, the committee
recommends $10.0 million to upgrade 51 ATACMS Block IA missiles
to Block IV configuration.
Multipurpose individual munition (MPIM) advance procurement
The budget request contained $3.5 million for advance
procurement of the MPIM. Subsequent to the submission of the
budget request to Congress, Army program officials identified
additional alternate warhead research, development, test and
evaluation work required to develop further the lethality of
the MPIM and reduce its weight. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a transfer of the $3.5 million requested for MPIM
advance procurement to PE 64802A for this purpose.
Patriot advanced capability-2 (PAC-2)
The budget request contained $22.9 million for Patriot
missile modifications.
The committee is aware that certain variants of the PAC-2
missile have recently experienced unexpectedly high rates of
failure in certain components. Although reductions in unit
readiness have not yet occured, the committee believes that
repair and upgrade of these missiles is needed to assure that
PAC-2 inventories remain sufficiently robust to meet validated
requirements. The committee understands that acceleration of
this process by one year will help meet this objective, provide
for earlier fielding of a guidance-enhanced missile with
improved ballistic and cruise missile defense capabilities, and
generate significant cost savings.
Therefore, the committee recommends $88.4 million for
Patriot modifications, and increase of $65.5 million.
Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM)
The budget request contained no funds for PACM procurement.
The PACM program has developed a new seeker that would
provide older Patriot missiles with anti-cruise missile
capabilities. The statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept.106-162) required the
Secretary of Defense to use the Defense Science Board (DSB) to
assess PACM capabilities and the opportunity costs of PACM
acquisition. The committee notes that the final DSB report
indicates that between $100 and $125 million of research and
development funding are needed to complete PACM design, resolve
parts obsolescence, prepare facilities for production,
integrate PACM with Patriot ground elements, and complete
ground and flight testing. The DSB also indicated that the cost
to upgrade PAC-2 airframes to the PACM configuration is about
$1.0 million per missile. The committee believes that, even if
ground- and flight-testing needed to make an informed judgment
on the technical merits of the missile were complete, the costs
identified by the DSB would still be prohibitive. For these
reasons, the committee recommends no funds for PACM
procurement, as requested.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,874.6 million for
procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for
fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of
$2,167.9 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Armored vehicle launch bridge (AVLB) service life extension program
(SLEP)
The budget request contained $15.3 million to conduct a
SLEP of AVLB vehicles. As a result of the cancellation of the
Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge (HAB), a SLEP for the 36-year
old, 60-ton military load class (MLC) AVLB is now a priority
for the Army. The SLEP will upgrade the AVLB to a 70-ton MLC
bridge, which will enable both the Abrams tank and Hercules
Improved Recovery Vehicles to safely cross expanses at full
span.
The committee notes the importance of this system and
recognizes that a number of these vehicles will remain in the
Army inventory after the fielding of the Wolverine HAB. The
committee further notes its continued support for the Wolverine
HAB, which is discussed elsewhere in this report. Therefore,
the committee recommends a decrease of $10.3 million for the
AVLB SLEP.
Bradley base sustainment
The budget request contained $359.4 million for the
procurement of Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, of which
$6.1 million was included for fielding Army National Guard
(ARNG) A2 Operation Desert Storm (ODS) variants.
The Bradley A2ODS is derived from upgrading the first-
generation Bradley A0's lethality, survivability, and mobility,
as well as the situational awareness of its crew. Modifications
include installation of a laser range finder, Global
Positioning System navigation capability, a combat
identification system, a driver's thermal viewer, and a missile
countermeasure device.
When the Army completes all of its planned upgrades to the
Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most
advanced A3 variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The
majority of the ARNG's Bradley fleet, however, will remain
unmodified and comprised mainly of first-generation A0
vehicles, which were not mobilized during the Persian Gulf War
because of major survivability deficiencies. However, as part
of the new ARNG enhanced brigades, the committee notes that
some of these A0 vehicles will be required to deploy with
active Army forces.
Because ARNG enhanced brigades will comprise an increasing
percentage of the Army's warfighting capability as a result of
active force reductions, the committee recommends $440.7
million, an increase of $81.3 million, for upgrading an
additional 65 Bradley A0 vehicles to the A2ODS variant for the
ARNG.
Bradley fighting vehicle system (BFVS) series (modifications)
The budget request contained $37.1 million to procure
modification kits for the BFVS but included no funds to procure
AN/VVR-1 laser warning receivers (LWR). The AN/VVR-1 LWR
provides warning to armored vehicle crews when a threat laser
used to direct a laser-guided weapon to its target has
illuminated them.
Because the committee is aware of the proliferation of
laser-guided weapons and the increasing threat they pose to
armored vehicles, it recommends an increase of $20.0 million to
procure additional AN/VVR-1 LWRs for the protection of high
value warfighting assets.
Heavy assault bridge (HAB) system
The budget request contained no funds to continue
procurement of the HAB.
The HAB is a 70-ton military load-class bridge transported
on a modified M1A2 Abrams system enhancement program (SEP) tank
chassis. The system is capable of spanning gaps up to 79 feet,
can be deployed in 5 minutes, and can be retrieved from either
end in less than 10 minutes.
The committee is concerned by the Secretary of the Army's
termination of this program, especially after having provided a
$14.0 million increase for HAB advance procurement in fiscal
year 2000, as well as having authorized a combined M1A2 SEP/HAB
multiyear procurement contract. The committee notes that the
Army Chief of Staff has identified the HAB as the Army's top
unfunded modernization requirement in fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $59.2
million for 12 vehicles and $13.1 million in advance
procurement for fiscal year 2002 to maintain HAB production.
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)
The budget request contained $68.4 million to procure IRVs
but included no funds for the procurement of IRVs for the Army
Reserve.
The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles
weighing less than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are
required to safely tow an Abrams tank if it is rendered
immobile due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The M88A2
IRV upgrade includes increased engine horsepower, as well as
braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension capabilities
required to safely recover Abrams tanks and other heavy combat
systems.
The committee understands that the Army Reserve has a
shortfall of three companies of IRVs in force package one
reserve units. Accordingly, the committee recommends $76.7
million, an increase of $8.3 million, for additional M88A2 IRV
upgrades for the Army Reserve.
Industrial preparedness
The budget request contained $3.6 million for storage and
maintenance of laid away equipment and facilities at Hawthorne
Army Depot and Rock Island and Watervliet Arsenals, but
included no funds for expanding the Armament Retooling and
Support (ARMS) Initiative to include the manufacturing
arsenals.
The committee recommends a provision (sec. 113) that would
expand the ARMS Initiative to attract commercial tenants to
these arsenals. The committee believes that collocating such
tenants with existing ammunition plants has helped maintain
both facilities and perishable industrial skills of the
ammunition production workforce with minimal expenditure of
public funds and that a similar effort to offset the
underutilization of the manufacturing arsenals would be equally
beneficial.
Therefore, the committee recommends $15.6 million, an
increase of $12.0 million to expand the ARMS initiative to
include the manufacturing arsenals.
M1 Abrams tank modifications
The budget request contained $36.1 million for M1 Abrams
tank modifications but included no funds for the procurement of
M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) tank under armor
auxiliary power units (UAAPU).
The UAAPU is designed to power tank weapon systems in lieu
of an idling M1A2 Abrams SEP tank's gas turbine engine, which
will reduce engine wear, fuel consumption, fuel storage and
transportation requirements while increasing the operating life
of the tank's batteries. The committee notes that the Army
Chief of Staff has identified an $18.9 million unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001 for 80 UAAPUs for M1A2 SEP
tanks.
The committee believes that the savings realized by using
an UAAPU will be considerable and, therefore, recommends $55.0
million, an increase of $18.9 million, for 80 UAAPUs.
M113 carrier modifications
The budget request contained $45.1 million for M113 carrier
modifications, of which $43.2 million was for M113 ``A3''
upgrades. The M113A3 upgrade program, which is expected to add
an additional 20 years of service life to the vehicle, includes
installation of a new engine, transmission, external armored
fuel tanks, driver controls, and internal Kevlar spall liners.
The committee notes that M113A3 upgrades are among the
highest unfunded requirements identified by the Army Chief of
Staff in fiscal year 2001. The committee further notes that
additional funds would accelerate the fielding of A3 upgrades
for force package two from fiscal year 2004 into fiscal year
2002.
Therefore, consistent with its actions taken in prior
fiscal years, the committee recommends $95.1 million, an
increase of $50.0 million for additional M113A3 upgrade kits.
M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of the M249 SAW.
The M249 SAW is a lightweight machine gun capable of
delivering a sustained volume of automatic, accurate, and
highly lethal fire up to ranges of 800 meters. It is fielded
throughout the Army in airborne, light and mechanized infantry,
and air cavalry units. The committee is concerned that the Army
has eliminated funds for this weapon in the future years
defense program but notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified an $18.3 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001 for the 4,280 remaining SAWs to complete the Army's
procurement objective of these weapons. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $18.3 million for this
purpose to complete the procurement objective of M249 SAWs.
MK19-3 grenade launcher
The budget request contained $11.8 million to procure MK19-
3 grenade launchers. The MK19-3 40 millimeter automatic grenade
launcher can engage point targets up to 1,500 meters in range
and provide suppressive fire up to 2,200 meters. The MK19-3 can
also be used as a crew-served weapon mounted on armored
vehicles and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles.
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified an $8.1 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001 for MK19-3s for Army National Guard (ARNG) units. The
committee also notes this weapon's increased importance in
military operations in urban terrain and the increasing
deployment of ARNG units into contingency operations of this
type.
Based on these factors, and consistent with prior year
actions to add funds for MK19s, the committee recommends $14.3
million, an increase of $2.5 million to procure additional
MK19-3 grenade launchers.
Small arms production industrial base
The committee understands that there is reluctance within
the Department of the Army to forward requests for waivers to
expand the competition on particular small arms critical repair
parts contracts to the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to the
authority provided in section 2473 of title 10, United States
Code. The committee is concerned that such waivers requested by
the Army from the Secretary of Defense have been denied. To
ensure that competition is available, when necessary, the
committee reiterates that waivers on small arms critical repair
parts contracts should be forwarded to, and granted by, the
Secretary of Defense when he believes it is not necessary to
preserve the small arms production industrial base.
Ammunition Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,131.3 million for
Ammunition Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The
committee recommends authorization of $1,199.3 million for
fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Army ammunition procurement
The budget request contained $1,131.3 million for
procurement of ammunition and production base support. The
committee recommends $1,199.3 million, an increase of $68.0
million for the following types of ammunition programs, which
include top unfunded requirements identified by the Chief of
Staff of the Army in fiscal year 2001:
[Dollars in millions]
Small/Medium Cal Ammunition:
CTG .50 cal, SLAPT M 903 (M 962).............................. $6.0
CTG .50 cal, Mk 211........................................... 2.0
Mortar Ammunition:
CTG mortar 60mm Illum M721/M767............................... 8.0
CTG 120mm HE M934 w/MO Fuze................................... 5.4
CTG 120mm Illum XM930 w/MTSQ Fuze............................. 6.6
Artillery Ammunition:
Modular Artillery Charge System............................... 20.0
Rockets:
Bunker Defeating Munition..................................... 10.0
Demolition Munitions:
APOBS......................................................... 2.0
Production Base Support:
ARMS Initiative............................................... 8.0
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $3,795.9 million for Other
Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $4,095.3 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Army data distribution system (ADDS)
The budget request contained $32.7 million to procure
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) radios but
included no funds to procure EPLRS for the Army National Guard
(ARNG).
The EPLRS radio is the Army's primary position location
reporting system, providing combat commanders information on
the position of their forces, in addition to supporting the
majority of the data communications requirements for brigade
and below command and control. The system provides secure, jam-
resistant, near-real-time communications and is essential to
battlefield operations.
The committee notes that procurement and fielding of
additional EPLRS is a high priority for the ARNG since many of
its units are in deployment rotations to the Balkans and, as a
result, must have the necessary data communications
capabilities to operate alongside active Army units.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $51.2 million for
ADDS, an increase of $18.5 million to procure EPLRS for an ARNG
enhanced brigade.
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)
The budget request contained $172.1 million for procurement
of ADPE, of which $485,000 was included for automatic
identification technology (AIT).
AIT devices, which consist of various radio frequency, bar
code scanning, and data carrier devices, are components of
automated logistics systems that expedite receiving, storage,
distribution, and inventory management of new and repairable
items. These devices are also used to automate manufacturing
process controls for aircraft repair parts and to track ground
support equipment at various military depots.
The committee believes that substantial savings can
continue to be achieved from further implementation of these
devices in automated inventory and repair processes. Therefore,
the committee recommends $178.1 million, an increase of $6.0
million, for maintenance AIT implementation.
Army training modernization
The budget request contained $36.0 million to procure
digital training facilities and supporting infrastructure for
The Army Distance Learning Program (TADLP), of which $10.9
million was included for Army National Guard (ARNG) distributed
training technology.
TADLP provides automation and supporting infrastructure to
improve the training of service members and civilian workers in
both the active and reserve components to a single standard,
particularly in military occupational skill qualifications.
Additionally, it provides a highly effective means of
delivering training and education to deployed troops while
reducing training delivery time and support costs.
The committee is aware of prior year increases in ARNG
funding for online courseware and training to enhance its role
in support of ``first responders'' to weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) incidents. The committee understands that the
ARNG has identified over 120 training courses as essential for
online WMD-related training and believes it is important to
support the ARNG's WMD first-response training requirement.
Therefore, the committee recommends $44.0 million for
TADLP, an increase of $8.0 million, for ARNG distributive
training technology to continue online courseware development
and procure commercial-off-the-shelf management system hardware
and software for WMD first-response training requirements.
Combat support medical
The budget request contained $31.6 million to procure
deployable medical systems and field medical equipment but
included no funds for rapid intravenous (IV) infusion pumps or
for Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) units. The
budget request also contained $6.3 million in PE 64807A, but
included funds for LSTAT.
The Rapid IV infusion pump is a miniature, portable,
lightweight pump specifically designed for life-saving
intravenous fluid resuscitation by a medic in the field to
restore blood pressure and prevent shock and death of victims
with severe blood loss or dehydration. This system was
developed in conjunction with the Walter Reed Army Medical
Institute of Research and has received Food and Drug
Administration approval. The committee understands that it is
estimated that up to 15 percent of the soldiers that died in
Vietnam who were not immediate battlefield casualties would
have survived their wounds if rapid infusion of fluids had been
a possibility during that conflict.
The LSTAT integrates a set of commercially available, Food
and Drug Administration-approved medical devices in a self-
contained mini-intensive care, medical evacuation platform,
which provides advanced life-support, on-board ventilation,
suction, environmental control, oxygen generation, and patient
monitoring to stabilize wounded soldiers near the battlefront
as they are evacuated. LSTAT is configured on a NATO-standard
litter, is broadly interoperable with other medical systems and
compatible with most evacuation platforms including UH-60s, UH-
1s, C-130s, and High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles.
The committee is impressed with the potential life saving
capability that these devices offer, and, therefore, recommends
$45.6 million, an increase of $8.0 million to procure rapid IV
infusion pumps and $6.0 million to begin procurement of LSTAT
units. The committee also recommends $10.3 million in PE64807A,
an increase of $4.0 million for development of expanded LSTAT
capabilities.
Combat training centers instrumentation support
The budget request contained $81.8 million for combat
training centers support but included no funds for either the
Army National Guard (ARNG) deployable force-on-force
instrumented range system (DFIRST) or the multi-purpose range
complex-heavy (MPRC-H).
Encouraged by the fact that the DFIRST system was chosen
over all current force-on-force instrumentation systems by the
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team (ASCIET) as
the instrumentation system for the fiscal year 1999 Joint
Exercise, in the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-
162), the committee recommended a pilot program at two ARNG
training sites to explore the capabilities and benefits of
DFIRST systems to increase readiness of ARNG units through more
effective training and at a lower cost with greater safety. To
continue this concept of force-on-force, simulation-based
training at regional training centers, the committee recommends
an increase of $10.5 million for the three additional DFIRSTs.
The committee understands that targeting electronic
upgrades are needed for the MPRC-H authorized by the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B
of Public Law 106-65). The committee believes that such
upgrades are absolutely paramount for effectively training ARNG
units for their growing worldwide deployments.
Therefore, the committee recommends $3.2 million for MPRC-H
targetry electronic upgrades. In total, the committee
recommends $95.5 million for combat training centers, an
increase of $13.7 million.
Communications equipment system upgrades
The committee believes that currently fielded military
radios and communication systems still require upgrades to
improve operational capability and dependability, as well as
reduce operations and support costs and is aware that Military
Standard 188-141A includes an approved miniaturized, multi-
function, digital communications technology, based on
compressor and expander techniques, that dramatically improves
quality of voice and data communications over both wired and
wireless networks. Accordingly, the committee expects the
Department of Defense to continue to use this technology, when
cost effective, to upgrade and improve current communications
systems such as, but not limited to, the Single Channel Ground
and Airborne Radio System, the Joint Tactical Radio System, and
the ARC-190 and PRC-104 radios.
Construction equipment service life extension program (SLEP)
The budget request contained $2.0 million for service life
extensions to various types of construction equipment but
included no funds to conduct an Army National Guard (ARNG) D-7
dozer and Army Reserve heavy grader and scraper SLEP.
The committee understands that the majority of the
currently fielded ARNG D-7 dozers have an average age of 27
years, well beyond their intended 15 year service lives and
that there are no plans to replace them. Additionally, the
committee notes that the average age of Army Reserve graders
and scrapers is 15 years. Both of these types of equipment
continue to have greater demands placed on them by the
increased ``operations-other-than-war'' deployments being
fulfilled by the reserve component have been called upon to
fulfill.
Therefore, the committee recommends $12.0 million for
construction equipment SLEPs, an increase of $5.0 million for
an ARNG D-7 dozer SLEP and $5.0 million for an Army Reserve
heavy scraper and grader SLEP.
Cranes
The budget request contained $6.1 million to procure
cranes, of which $3.0 million was included for the procurement
of three replacement wheel-mounted, 25-ton all-terrain cranes
(ATECs). However, no ATECs were requested for the Army Reserve
(AR).
The ATEC is a multi-use, state-of-the-art, commercial all-
terrain crane used for engineer construction excavation,
lifting and loading general supplies and materiel, and bridging
movement. The ATEC replaces three existing types of cranes,
which range in age from 19 to 30 years old and suffer from low
operational readiness rates and high operations and support
costs, with a single, state-of-the-art unit that exceeds all
three of the obsolete cranes' capabilities.
The committee notes the importance of ATECs in fulfilling
Army Reserve combat support and combat service support mission
requirements and recommends $16.1 million, an increase of $10.0
million, to procure ATECs for the Army Reserve.
Deployable universal combat earthmovers (DEUCE)
The budget request contained $14.1 million to procure
DEUCEs. The DEUCE is a military-unique, high speed, earthmoving
tractor capable of clearing, leveling, and excavating
operations for light and airborne divisions.
The committee understands that the DUECE will be a critical
piece of equipment for the Army's interim medium brigades. The
committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a
$14.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to
procure 36 DEUCEs for the Army's initial and interim brigades
as part of the service's transformation.
Therefore, the committee recommends $24.3 million, an
increase of $10.2 million, to begin fielding DEUCEs to the
interim brigades.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)
The budget request contained $166.1 million for the
procurement of the FHTV. Although the budget request included
$121.8 million for Army National Guard (ARNG) FHTV and $6.2
million for Army Reserve FHTV, no funds were included for the
procurement of Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTT)
or Heavy Expanded Mobility Trailers (HEMAT) for ARNG Multiple
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) battalion conversions. The HEMTT is
a diesel powered, 10-ton, 8-wheel drive, tactical vehicle that
transports ammunition, and petroleum. The vehicle is also
produced in wrecker, tanker, and tractor variants and is the
prime mover in support of certain missile systems, including
the MLRS.
The committee notes the Army Chief of Staff has identified
an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for additional
HEMMTs and HEMATs for ARNG MLRS battalion conversion. The
committee is also aware of a HEMTT fire truck shortfall in two
Army Reserve combat service support companies that are
designated as force package one units. These vehicles would
replace obsolete fire trucks that were commercially adapted for
military purposes.
The committee recommends $171.1 million for the FHTV, an
increase of $3.8 million to procure both HEMTTs and HEMATs for
ARNG MLRS battalion conversion and $1.2 million to procure
three HEMTT fire trucks for the Army Reserve.
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)
The budget request contained $438.3 million for procurement
of, and identified improvements to the FMTV, of which $84.0
million was included for two and one-half-ton variants for the
Army National Guard (ARNG) and $33.8 million was included for
these variants for the Army Reserve. The FMTV comprise the
Army's two and one-half-ton and five-ton, common chassis cargo
and utility trucks. The committee notes that the Army Chief of
Staff has identified a $118.9 million unfunded requirement in
fiscal year 2001 for reserve component FMTV due to the
increasing reliance upon the reserves for combat support and
combat service support missions.
The committee strongly supports upgrading the reserve
component's aging fleet of trucks and, therefore, recommends
$473.3 million, an increase of $35.0 million for additional
Army Reserve two and one-half-ton and five-ton FMTVs.
High mobility multipurpose-wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
The budget request contained $110.7 million for 1,002
HMMWVA2s, which incorporate upgraded electrical, braking,
engine and transmission improvements as well as a 15-year
corrosion prevention program, but included no funds for HMMWVs
to fill critical shortages in Army Reserve combat support and
combat service support units.
The HMMWV is a multi-service, four-wheel drive utility and
logistics vehicle. The Army fleet is used for personnel and
weapons transport, medical evacuation, and as an air defense
weapon-mount platform. While recognizing that the HMMWVs
requested in the budget will replace older vehicles in high
priority active component units, the committee is concerned
that certain Army Reserve units do not have enough HMMWVs to
meet their growing mission and deployment requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends $115.7 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, for 100 Army Reserve HMMWVA2s.
Hydraulic excavator (HYEX)
The budget request contained $8.3 million for procurement
of HYEXs, of which $2.6 million was included for 11 Army
Reserve HYEXs. The HYEX is a diesel driven, self-propelled,
tracked vehicle with a wide variety of excavation attachments
used for general excavation; digging; trenching and lifting for
lines of communication; logistics-over-the-shore, and other
construction activities primarily in support of Corps and
Echelons Above Corps levels.
The committee understands that a HYEX shortfall exists in
high priority Army Reserve construction units and that these
units will continue to operate existing obsolete equipment for
the foreseeable future until it is replaced.
Based upon increased reliance on the reserve component to
provide engineer equipment for operations-other-than-war, and
disaster/humanitarian relief operations, the committee
recommends $10.6 million, an increase of $2.3 million, for 13
additional Type I HYEXs for the Army Reserve.
Information system security program (ISSP)
The budget request contained $54.4 million, $46.6 million,
and $15.7 million to procure secure voice and data equipment
for the Army, Navy, and Air Force respectively.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162)
recommended an increase of $9.0 million in fiscal year 2000 to
support the services' efforts to replace older secure voice and
data systems with modern multi-media secure digital
communications equipment. The committee continues to strongly
support upgrading critical telecommunications equipment to
safeguard classified or sensitive information in the face of
growing information security threats.
Therefore, in order to accelerate the replacement of
obsolete secure voice and data terminals, the committee
recommends an increase of $12.0 million to procure additional
secure terminal equipment: $4.0 million for the Army ISSP, $4.0
million for the Navy and Marine Corps ISSP, and $4.0 million
for the Air Force ISSP.
Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)
The budget request contained $65.4 million to procure IFTE,
of which $37.1 million was included for Contact Test Sets (CTS)
Soldier Portable On-System Repair Tool (SPORT).
The CTS SPORT is the Army's standard lightweight,
ruggedized, portable tester used at all levels of maintenance
to automatically diagnose faulty electronic components for
immediate replacement.
The committee has strongly supported the IFTE program over
the years and continues to believe in the productivity
improvements resulting from automatic test equipment usage.
Therefore, the committee recommends $70.4 million for IFTE, an
increase of $5.0 million, to procure additional CTS SPORTs.
However, the committee is aware that the current CTS SPORT
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract will
expire in June 2001. Based on the importance of the CTS SPORT
to numerous weapons systems and to avoid possible fielding
interruptions for this equipment, the committee expects the
Secretary of the Army to extend the current ID/IQ contract for
CTS SPORT and understands that this extension would require no
government costs.
Laundries, showers, and latrines
The budget request contained $12.6 million to procure the
Laundry Advanced System (LADS). The LADS is a mobile field
laundry designed to launder clothing at four times the capacity
of the current, but obsolete M-85 field laundry system and
recycle 99 percent of the water used by the M-85 system.
The committee believes the logistical benefit to field
combat service support units from reduced water usage combined
with the enhancement to deployed soldiers' quality of life
provided by LADS are impressive. Consequently, the committee
strongly supports the Army's efforts to replace the obsolete
and unserviceable M-85 system and recommends $21.6 million, an
increase of 9.0 million, to accelerate procurement of LADS.
Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)
The budget request contained $2.0 million to procure LMEs.
The LME is a lightweight, frame-supported tent designed to
provide forward deployed maintenance units a quick setup-and-
takedown enclosed shelter in which to perform field maintenance
operations across the battlefield in all climatic conditions.
The committee notes that mobility will be the hallmark of
the Army's future medium brigades and that they must therefore
be capable of rapidly repairing and maintaining equipment while
deployed. The committee also notes that the Army Chief of Staff
has identified a $4.6 million unfunded requirement in fiscal
year 2001 for LMEs to maintain production at minimum sustaining
rate.
Therefore, the committee recommends $6.6 million, an
increase of $4.6 million, for the procurement of additional
LMEs and to maintain a minimum production rate.
M56 smoke generator system
The budget request contained $11.4 million for the
procurement of M56 smoke generator systems.
The M56 smoke generator system, the primary battlefield
obscurant for Army light forces, is a High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle-mounted system capable of
disseminating smoke in both a stationary mode and on the move.
The M56 can defeat enemy sensors such as tank thermal sights as
well as smart and guided munitions, which operate in the visual
through far infrared regimes of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The committee understands that the M56 has been designated
as an essential item of equipment for early entry forces yet is
not being produced at an economic production rate. Therefore,
to address this problem, the committee recommends $22.8
million, an increase of $11.4 million, to reach an economic
production rate of this system.
M915/M916 line haul truck tractor
The budget request contained $43.0 million for 915A3 line
haul tractors, of which $3.4 million was included for M915A3s
for the Army Reserve. The M915A3 line haul tractor is a six-by-
four wheel drive vehicle fielded primarily in medium
transportation companies and used to haul containers and
petroleum over both primary and secondary roads.
The committee notes that currently fielded M915 tractors
are experiencing reduced mission capable rates and are both
difficult and expensive to operate due to old age. To correct
this deficiency and to fill critical shortages in Army Reserve
line haul companies, the committee recommends $44.6 million for
M915/M916 line haul truck tractors, an increase of $1.6 million
to procure 12 additional upgraded M915A3 tractors.
Night vision devices
The budget request contained $34.1 million to procure night
vision devices, of which $29.5 million was included for AN/PVS-
7 night vision goggles. However, no funds were included for
third generation, 25 millimeter (mm) image intensification tube
upgrades.
The AN/PVS-7 night vision goggle is a state-of-the-art
image-intensifying system, which can be head- or helmet-mounted
to enhance the dismounted soldier's nighttime operations. The
25mm image intensification tube upgrade program, which replaces
less capable tubes with the third generation variant in fielded
AN/PVS-4 night vision goggles and AN/TVS-5 night vision sights,
provides a minimum 25 percent resolution increase in these
systems.
The committee has consistently supported additional funds
for night vision devices the past five years, and notes that
the Army Chief of Staff has identified $14.8 million unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001 to procure AN/PVS-7 night
vision goggles and $8.4 million for third generation, 25mm
image intensification tube upgrades.
Consistent with prior year actions, the committee
recommends an increase of $12.0 million for AN/PVS-7 night
vision goggles and $8.4 million for third generation, 25mm
image intensification tube upgrades. The committee expects
$400,000 of the AN/PVS-7 increase to be used to procure these
goggles for Army Reserve combat support units.
Nonsystem training devices
The budget request contained $91.9 million for procurement
of various training devices and range modernization but no
funds were included for continued procurement of engagement
skills trainer (EST) 2000 or Abrams Full-crew Interactive
Skills Trainers (A-FIST) XXI upgrades for the Army National
Guard (ARNG).
The EST 2000 simulates three-dimensional targets in several
realistic terrain environments, providing marksmanship, squad-
tactical, and close-range shoot-no-shoot training. This system
also provides both shooter and instructor with real-time and
post-exercise weapon handling technique feedback. The committee
understands that the ARNG has a requirement for 100 EST 2000
systems.
The ARNG A-FISTs do not meet current Army tank gunnery
training standards and require software upgrades to enhance
training on the tank commander's weapon station and to provide
identical gunnery matrices to the Conduct Of Fire Trainer, the
Army's standard for stand-alone precision gunnery training
devices. The committee understands that these upgrades will
offer significant training advantages for tank crews as well as
reduced maintenance costs. The committee also understands that
the ARNG has developed a three-year, A-FIST XXI conversion
program to incorporate these upgrades.
The committee believes that these training systems are
critical for ARNG forces' marksmanship and gunnery simulation
training in light of their increased worldwide deployments.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million
for procurement of 30 EST 2000 systems and an increase of $9.0
million for the first increment of a three-year A-FIST XXI
conversion program, both for the ARNG. In total, the committee
recommends $108.9 million for nonsystem training devices, an
increase of $17.0 million.
Reserve component automation system (RCAS)
The budget request contained $91.5 million to procure and
field RCAS equipment and software.
The RCAS is critical to the day-to-day operation and
mobilization capability of the Army National Guard and Army
Reserve. If continued support for, and improvements to, this
program are not made, the reserve components will experience a
significant deterioration in their ability to mobilize in
support of national security missions in a timely manner.
The committee understands that there is a limitation of
Army funds allocated for the RCAS beyond fiscal year 2002.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to budget
sufficient funds in the future years defense program to ensure
that the RCAS will be able to effectively fulfill the
administrative support and mobilization requirements of the
reserve components. The committee also expects the Secretary to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the
yearly allocation of funds required annually maintain and
improve the RCAS program by March 1, 2001.
Ribbon bridge
The budget request contained $15.7 million for ribbon
bridge equipment but included no funds to procure this
equipment for Army National Guard (ARNG) multi-role bridge
companies (MRBC). Ribbon bridge equipment consists of 10-ton,
8-wheel drive M1977 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck
Common Bridge Transporters, M15 Bridge Adaptor Pallets, and M14
Improved Boat Cradles.
The committee understands that seven ARNG MRBC will be
established in fiscal year 2001 using existing engineer
bridging equipment and older, lower-capacity, five-ton trucks.
The committee also understands that without additional funds,
these new MRBC units will not begin conversion to the new
equipment required for their mission until fiscal year 2004.
Therefore, the committee recommends $42.7 million for
ribbon bridging equipment, an increase of $27.0 million to
accelerate the fielding of two ARNG MRBC.
Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family
The budget request contained $18.3 million for the
procurement and the fielding of airborne SINCGARS, but included
no funds to procure SINCGARS advanced system improvement
program (ASIP) radios for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
The SINCGARS ASIP radio upgrades early version voice-only
radios and includes a tactical Internet controller and
integrated communications security enhancements, which provide
commanders a highly reliable, easily maintained, secure voice
and data handling command and control capability.
The committee understands that two ARNG divisions still
require improved SINCGARS; and, without these upgraded radios,
these forces will be unable to transmit and receive data from
their active Army components when participating together in
joint and combined operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends $49.0 million for
SINCGARS, an increase of $30.7 million, to procure SINCGARS
ASIP radios for one ARNG division.
Small tug
The budget request contained no funds to procure small
tugs.
The small tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin propeller
vessel designed to tow general cargo barges in harbors, inland
waterways, and along coastlines. It is also capable of
assisting larger tugs in mooring ships of all sizes at piers
and in restricted navigation waterways, moving of floating
cranes and machine shops, and performing line-handling duties.
The committee is aware of the Army's intent to replace its
unreliable 40-year old small tugs that were used in Operations
Desert Shield and Desert Storm and understands that it has
increased its requirement to fifteen tugs to replace these
older vessels. The committee included an increase of $4.7
million in fiscal year 1999 to procure two additional tugs and
$9.0 million in fiscal year 2000 to complete the earlier
requirement of eight tugs. However, the committee notes that
the Army has not budgeted for the additional seven new tugs in
its future years defense program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million to accelerate procurement of 3 additional vessels
towards completion of the requirement for 15 small tugs.
Standard integrated command post system (SICPS)
The budget request contained $36.0 million to procure SICPS
components, of which $1.3 million was included for modular
command post system (MCPS) tents.
The MCPS tent consists of a lightweight aluminum frame,
interchangeable fabric wall sections, fabric roof, floors and
liners, worktables, map boards, and light sets. Multiple MCPS
tents can be interconnected to create a large complex. The
committee notes the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $40.1
million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to accelerate
the procurement of SICPS components for force packages one and
two.
The committee is aware of the vital role MCPS tents play in
growing worldwide deployments and, therefore, recommends $41.0
million, an increase of $2.0 million and $3.0 million
respectively, to procure MCPS for active and Army National
Guard units.
Standard teleoperating kit
The budget request contained $700,000 to procure
Standardized Robotic System (SRS) vehicle teleoperating kits.
The SRS kit can be installed on existing tracked or wheeled
vehicles to enable them to be operated by remote control, if
circumstances dictate, to clear mines. The committee
understands that SRS contingency sets have been responsible for
detonating hundreds of mines while deployed in Bosnia. The
committee also notes that redesigned combat engineer force
structure requires SRS equipment at all force levels, including
the new interim medium brigades.
Based on the successful employment of this technology and
the critical life saving mission that it performs, the
committee recommends $10.7 million for standard teleoperating
equipment, an increase of $10.0 million for additional SRS
kits.
Vibratory self-propelled roller
The budget request contained $4.7 million to procure
vibratory self-propelled rollers. The vibratory self-propelled
roller is a commercial compacting vehicle used to support
construction of airfields, logistic areas, and roads required
to deploy and sustain Army forces.
The committee notes that the last major procurement of this
equipment occurred in the early 1980s and that its 22-year
average age, combined with the effects of increased
deployments, has reduced its readiness ratings to
unsatisfactory levels. The committee also notes that the Army
Chief of Staff has identified a $10.0 million unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001 to replace vibratory self-
propelled rollers for both the active and reserve components as
a fiscal year 2001 unfunded requirement.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $11.7 million, an
increase of $7.0 million to procure 96 additional vibratory
self-propelled rollers, including $3.0 million for active Army
units and $4.0 million for Army Reserve units.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,003.5 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends no funds for fiscal year 2001.
Items of Special Interest
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
The budget request contained $1,003.5 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.
The committee notes that section 1412 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99-
145), as amended, requires that funds for the destruction of
the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions,
including funds for military construction projects necessary to
carry out the demilitarization program shall only be authorized
and appropriated in the budget of the Department of Defense
(DOD) as a separate program and shall not be included in the
budget accounts for any military department. The committee
notes that for the second year in a row, the Department's
budget request contained funds for the chemical
demilitarization program in a budget account of the Department
of the Army in direct violation of the law.
The committee believes that the original legislation, which
mandated that funds for the chemical demilitarization program
be authorized and appropriated in a defense-wide budget account
in order to emphasize that destruction of the chemical weapons
stockpile was a national issue affecting all of the Department
and not just a single military service, was sound in 1986, when
the estimated cost of the chemical stockpile demilitarization
program was approximately $1.5 billion, and is even more valid
today, when the estimated cost of the program has grown almost
ten-fold.
Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of
$1,003.5 million. The committee recommends an increase of
$877.1 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $7,963.9 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $8,205.8 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced helicopter emergency egress lighting system (ADHEELS)
The budget request contained $21.1 million for SH-60 series
modifications but included no funds for the ADHEELS. The
ADHEELS provides crew escape lighting for H-60 series
helicopters in the event of water impact.
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy
has selected ADHEELS as its future helicopter escape lighting
system due to its superior performance, significantly increased
operational reliability, and lower life-cycle costs.
The committee strongly supports this choice and recommends
$29.1 million, an increase of $8.0 million for accelerated
ADHEELS procurement and installation in both new production and
existing H-60 series helicopters.
AN/AVR-2A laser detecting set
The budget request contained $41.9 million for common
electronic countermeasures modifications, of which $13.5
million was included for an AN/AAR-47 sensor upgrade.
The AN/AVR-2A laser detecting set alerts pilots to the
presence of impending laser beamriding missile attack in
sufficient time to take evasive action. The committee notes
that the Department of the Navy plans a laser warning
capability upgrade to the AN/AAR-47 missile approach warning
system, which would eliminate the need for a stand-alone AN/
AVR-2A, but is concerned that the AN/AAR-47 upgrade might not
be as capable as the existing AN/AVR-2A.
Therefore, the committee expects that procurement and
installation of the AN/AAR-47 sensor upgrade should not occur
until the Commander of Navy Operational Test and Evaluation
Forces ensures that adequate testing is undertaken, including
side-by-side, on-aircraft testing comparing it with the AN/AVR-
2A.
AV-8B
The budget request contained $226.6 million to procure 10
remanufactured AV-8B aircraft. The AV-8B remanufacture program
combines a new fuselage, a power plant, and radar with other
mission systems upgrades to produce a significantly more
capable aircraft at 70 percent of the cost of a new aircraft.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy plans for
fiscal year 2001 to be the last year for procurement of
remanufactured AV-8Bs.
The committee recognizes that the AV-8B performs the close
air support (CAS) mission, which is critical to the successful
employment of Marine forces. Additionally, the committee
believes that the short take-off, vertical land (STOVL), radar-
equipped AV-8B will remain an important component of CAS
capability until its replacement by the Marine Corps' joint
strike fighter (JSF) STOVL variant, currently in the
demonstration and validation phase of its development.
Since the committee understands that the Marine Corps' JSF
variant is currently planned for its initial operational
capability in fiscal year 2008, it expects the Secretary of the
Navy to ensure that the Marine Corps has procured sufficient
STOVL, radar-equipped AV-8Bs prior to discontinuing the AV-8B
remanufacture program.
C-40A
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of C-
40A aircraft.
The C-40A, a long-range commercial-derivative airlift
aircraft used to transport high priority passengers and cargo,
will replace the Navy's 27-year-old C-9 fleet which is reaching
the end of its service life.
The committee understands that the Navy's aging C-9 fleet
is not compliant with either future global navigation
requirements or noise abatement standards, that will restrict
future flights into European airfields. The committee also
notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has identified
additional C-40A aircraft for the Naval Reserve among his top
unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $54.0
million to procure an additional C-40A aircraft for the Naval
Reserve.
CH-60S
The budget request contained $165.1 million for 15 CH-60S
helicopters and $80.4 million for advance procurement of 16 CH-
60Ss in fiscal year 2002.
The CH-60S replaces the H-46D for the Navy's helicopter
combat support missions including vertical replenishment, cargo
and personnel transfer, and search and rescue.
The committee understands that the aging H-46D is
increasingly expensive to operate and that its replacement with
a fleet of H-60 series helicopters will avoid an estimated
$22.0 billion of support costs over the next 20 years. The
committee also notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has
identified additional CH-60S helicopters among his top unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001.
The committee believes that the aging H-46D fleet should be
retired as soon as practical and, therefore, recommends $207.0
million, an increase of $41.9 million for two additional CH-60S
helicopters.
E-2 modifications
The budget request contained $18.5 million for E-2
modifications but included no funds to upgrade ready-storage
Group I-configured E-2C aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000
configuration.
Group I-configured E-2C aircraft are no longer usable for
the Navy's fleet operations due to their outdated computer and
communications capabilities but could be modified to the
Hawkeye 2000 configuration which would upgrade this aircraft
with satellite communications; a commercial-off-the-shelf,
high-capacity mission computer and associated workstations; and
the cooperative engagement capability. The committee
understands that this modification will provide the E-2C fleet
with a quantum leap in situational awareness and fleet-wide
connectivity.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $57.5 million, an
increase of $39.0 million, to upgrade one ready-storage Group I
E-2Cs to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
EA-6B modifications
The budget request contained $203.1 million for EA-6B
modifications but included no funds for the AN/ASW-41 automatic
flight control system (AFCS), which provides the EA-6B pilot
with automatic speed, attitude and altitude control
capabilities. The budget request also contained no funds for
HAVE QUICK ARC-164 radios which employ a rapid frequency-
hopping technique to provide an anti-jam radio capability.
The committee understands that replacement of the current
flight control system with the AN/ASW-41 AFCS will
significantly increase this aircraft's mission capable rates
through improved reliability and reduced maintenance man-hours.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has
identified the AN/ASW-41 AFCS among his unfunded requirements
in fiscal year 2001 and, therefore, recommends an increase of
$21.0 million for this purpose.
The committee understands that only 41 of the Department of
the Navy's 123 EA-6Bs are equipped with either an ARC-164, ARC-
182, or ARC-210 HAVE QUICK anti-jam radio and that during the
recent Operation Allied Force engagement many EA-6Bs were not
capable of jam-free ultra-high frequency (UHF) communications
with other Allied aircraft in composite-force strike packages.
As a result of the EA-6B's HAVE QUICK radio deficiency, the
committee also understands that entire Operation Allied Force
strike packages were forced to use single UHF frequencies which
were vulnerable to communications jamming and could be easily
monitored by our adversaries with a potential to compromise
operational mission execution plans.
While the committee is aware of the Department's plans to
equip the EA-6B fleet with ARC-210 radios as part of the block
89A upgrade, it believes that an interim anti-jam radio
capability is critical for any future EA-6B combat operations
until the block 89A upgrade is complete in fiscal year 2005.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million to equip 40 additional EA-6B aircraft with ARC-164
anti-jam radios.
In total, the committee recommends $226.1 million for EA-6B
modifications, an increase of $23.0 million.
F-18 series modifications
The budget request contained $212.6 million for F-18 series
modifications, of which $22.7 million was included for
engineering change proposal (ECP)-583 kits to modify six Marine
Corps F/A-18A aircraft, $3.0 million was included for
installation of ECP-560 modification kits for seven Naval
Reserve F/A-18A aircraft, $5.3 million was included for two
advanced targeting forward-looking infrared (ATFLIR) pods for
both Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18C/D aircraft, and $23.8
million was included for the advanced tactical airborne
reconnaissance system (ATARS).
The ECP-583 modification kit upgrades the radar, avionics
and weapons delivery capability of the Marine Corps' F/A-18A
model aircraft to the same capability as later-model F/A-18Cs.
Without this capability, the F/A-18A cannot autonomously
deliver precision-guided munitions (PGMs) or employ the Air
Intercept Missile (AIM)-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air
Missile (AMRAAM). The committee notes that the Navy's long-
range attack aircraft plans include the employment of the F/A-
18A until at least 2015. Despite the fact that the Marine Corps
has a requirement to upgrade 76 of its F/A-18As with this
modification, the Department of the Navy has thus far only
planned to upgrade 34 aircraft. However, the committee notes
that both the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) have identified ECP-583
among their top unfunded aviation requirements in fiscal year
2001 and recommends an increase of $86.9 million to procure
twenty additional ECP-583 upgrade kits for the Marine Corps' F/
A-18A aircraft fleet--10 for the active component and 10 for
the Marine Corps Reserve.
The ECP-560 modification kit upgrades only the avionics and
weapons delivery capability of the Naval Reserve's F/A-18A
aircraft to employ PGMs and the AIM-120 AMRAAM, improving both
the Naval Reserve's F/A-18A capability and its commonality with
the Navy's F/A-18C aircraft fleet. The committee notes that
only 13 of the Naval Reserve's 52 F/A-18As have undergone ECP-
560 modification upgrades, but understands that the Navy plans
to retain its Naval Reserve F/A-18As in the inventory until at
least 2012. The committee further notes that the CNO has
identified the ECP-560 among his unfunded requirements for the
Naval Reserve in fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of
$31.0 million for this purpose.
The ATFLIR pod detects, classifies and tracks ground
targets for engagement with precision-guided munitions. The
ATFLIR pod replaces the existing tactical forward-looking
infrared pod that, the committee understands, has inadequate
resolution, loses target track during high-G maneuvering, and
does not maintain automatic track at required ranges. The
committee notes that both the CNO and CMC have also included
the ATFLIR among their unfunded requirements for fiscal year
2001 and recommends an increase of $9.6 million for an
additional three ATFLIR pods for the Marine Corps Reserve F/A-
18 aircraft.
The ATARS is an image acquisition, data storage, and data
link sensor suite planned for use on the Marine Corps' F/A-18D
aircraft. The committee notes that the recently completed ATARS
operational evaluation concluded that the system was not
operationally suitable due to reliability and availability
problems with its ground station component. As a result, the
committee believes that the Department of the Navy's $23.8
million ATARS procurement request exceeds requirements and,
consequently, recommends a decrease of that amount.
In total, the committee recommends $316.3 million, an
increase of $103.7 million, for F-18 series modifications.
F/A-18C/D tactical aircraft moving map capability (TAMMAC)
The budget request contained $71.6 million for common
avionics changes but included no funds for procurement of
TAMMAC units for F/A-18C/D aircraft.
The TAMMAC, which replaces obsolete data storage and
digital video units, is a modular hardware and software system
with significant memory, information processing, and video
output capabilities. It provides aircrews with a graphic
presentation of the aircraft's present position as well as
relative positions of targets, threats, terrain features, no-
fly zones, and safe bases. The committee understands that the
TAMMAC also includes a ground proximity warning system to
improve flight safety and will be less expensive to operate and
support than the existing units.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has
included procurement of the TAMMAC for the F/A-18C/D aircraft
among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $80.9 million, an
increase of $9.3 million to procure 80 TAMMAC units for F/A-
18C/D aircraft.
F/A-18E/F
The budget request contained $2,818.6 million for 42 F/A-
18E/F aircraft, and $101.1 million for advance procurement of
45 aircraft in fiscal year 2002.
In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162), the
committee supported the Navy's requirement to replace its aging
fighter/attack aircraft fleet by authorizing a multiyear
procurement of 222 aircraft. However, the committee notes that
the Department of the Navy now plans to procure three less
aircraft in fiscal year 2002 than projected in fiscal year
2000, which results in 219 F/A-18E/F aircraft planned for the
multiyear procurement period between fiscal years 2000 through
2004.
Consistent with the planned program of the Department of
the Navy for fiscal year 2002, the committee recommends
$2,612.8 million, a decrease of $205.8 million and three
aircraft. The committee understands that this reduction will
maintain the F/A-18E/F fiscal year 2001 procurement quantity
within a range that will not affect the multiyear procurement
contract.
HH/UH-1N reclamation and conversion program
The budget request contained no funds for the HH/UH-1N
reclamation and conversion program.
The HH/UH-1N reclamation and conversion program would
restore old HH/UH-1N helicopters, currently in long-term
storage facilities, for entry into a remanufacture production
line that rebuilds the aircraft's avionics, propulsion, and
other systems.
The committee understands that current H-1 remanufacture
plans would remove UH-1N helicopters from the Marine Corps'
operating fleet for entry into the H-1 remanufacture production
line, decreasing the number of UH-1Ns in some of the Marine
Corps' UH-1N helicopter squadrons below their authorized
strength. In order to avoid this situation, the committee notes
that both the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps have identified the HH/UH-1N reclamation and
conversion program among their unfunded requirements in fiscal
year 2001.
The committee believes that UH-1N fleet readiness will
suffer if operational aircraft are removed from the fleet to be
upgraded. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of
$17.5 million for the HH-UH-1N reclamation and conversion
program and believes that this increase will provide for
induction of fourteen helicopters into the remanufacture
production line.
H-46 modifications
The budget request contained $16.6 million for H-46
modifications but included no funds for the CH-46E engine
reliability improvement program (ERIP) to rebuild the CH-46E's
key engine components, providing improved performance, safety,
and reliability.
Subsequent to the submission of the budget request, the
committee learned that the mean time between engine removals
(MTBR) of the CH-46E's engine has rapidly declined to 363
hours, and that the CH-46E's engine performance has degraded 10
percent from original specifications. To address this problem,
the committee understands that an ERIP would restore the
engine's MTBR to the planned interval of 900 hours, greatly
reducing operation and support costs in the process.
The committee notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations
and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have identified the ERIP
as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001. Since the CH-
46E is scheduled to remain in service until 2012, the committee
recommends $21.6 million, an increase of $5.0 million to begin
an ERIP for the CH-46E engine and encourages the Department of
the Navy to budget to complete the ERIP within the fiscal year
2002 future years defense program.
H-53 modifications
The budget request contained $19.9 million for H-53
helicopter modifications but included no funds for AN/AAQ-29
forward looking infrared (FLIR) system kits that would provide
an improved capability for the Marine Corps' CH-53E helicopters
to operate at night and in poor weather conditions.
The AN/AAQ-29 FLIR, which replaces the out-of-production
AN/AAQ-16 FLIR, provides aircrews and embarked ground force
commanders with infrared video displays, flight information,
and navigational data. The committee understands that only 42
of the Marine Corps' 165 CH-53E helicopters are equipped with a
FLIR system and notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations
and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have included 23 AN/AAQ-
29 FLIR system kits among their unfunded requirements in fiscal
year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $34.9 million, an
increase of $15.0 million, for 23 AN/AAQ-29 FLIR system kits:
$12.4 million for 19 system kits for active component CH-53Es,
and $2.6 million for 4 system kits for the Marine Corps Reserve
CH-53Es.
KC-130J
The budget request contained $154.8 million for two KC-130J
aircraft.
The KC-130J is a tactical airlift aircraft that also serves
as a tanker for both helicopters and tactical fighters. The KC-
130J replaces existing KC-130F, R, and Tmodels, providing
increased speed and range, a higher cruise ceiling, and a shorter take-
off distance compared to the older models.
The Marine Corps currently has an inventory of 35 KC-130Fs,
14 KC-130Rs, and 28 KC-130Ts. The KC-130F, which was procured
between 1960 and 1962, is the oldest aircraft in the inventory
and is approaching the end of its service life. The committee
understands that a recent service life assessment of the KC-
130F fleet revealed that unless procurement of KC-130Js is
accelerated or a comprehensive and costly service life
extension program is undertaken, an inventory shortfall of 15
aircraft may occur as early as 2001.
In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162), the
committee recommended an increase of four KC-130Js and notes
that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified
additional KC-130J aircraft among his highest unfunded aviation
procurement requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee
recommends $231.1 million, an increase of $76.3 million for one
additional KC-130J aircraft.
T-45 training system (TS)
The budget request contained $268.6 million to procure 12
T-45C aircraft and associated ground-based training equipment
and $5.1 million for advance procurement of 4 T-45C aircraft in
fiscal year 2002. The T-45TS is an integrated training system
that combines the T-45 aircraft, simulators, and computer-based
training for the Navy's intermediate-level undergraduate pilot
training.
The committee notes that the T-45 aircraft procurement
objective has decreased from 234 in the Department of the
Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2000 to 169 in its
request for fiscal year 2001. The committee further notes that
the Navy plans to close its T-45 production line in fiscal year
2002 although the requirement for the T-45 remains at 234.
Since the Navy has experienced a recent shortage of pilots and
the Chief of Naval Operations has identified additional T-45
aircraft among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001,
the committee is puzzled by both the decrease in its T-45
procurement objective and its proposed shutdown of the T-45
production line in fiscal year 2002.
Consequently, the committee recommends $301.4 million, an
increase of $32.8 million for two additional aircraft. Further,
the committee encourages the Department of the Navy to restore
funding in its future years defense program to continue T-45
production.
Tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS)-completely digital (CD)
The budget request contained $37.1 million for other
production charges but included no funds for the TARPS-CD
system, an electro-optic sensor upgrade designed to validate
clear-weather digital imaging technologies and to mitigate
development risks for the shared reconnaissance pod (SHARP)
system.
The committee notes the recent, successful at-sea
deployment of the TARPS-CD system and believes that the
progress of the Navy's digital imaging technology risk-
mitigation efforts thus far provides sufficient confidence to
build on these efforts through the integration of a non-
developmental, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) synthetic
aperture radar (SAR) sensor which will provide day/night
imagery in all-weather conditions. Since the committee
understands that an all-weather reconnaissance capability is a
requirement for the SHARP system, it fully supports further
risk-mitigation activities integrating a SAR sensor on the
TARPS-CD system.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $44.1 million, an
increase of $7.0 million, to integrate a COTS SAR sensor into
the TARPS CD.
UC-35
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of
UC-35 aircraft for the Army, Navy or the Marine Corps.
The UC-35 is a medium-range, medium-lift operational
support aircraft. The committee understands that the Army,
Navy, and the Marine Corps conduct the operational support
airlift mission with the short-range C-12 aircraft, which is
increasingly expensive to operate, and does not meet payload,
range, or avionics requirements. The committee notes that the
Army Chief of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps have each identified the
procurement of UC-35s among their unfunded requirements in
fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $22.8
million for three UC-35 aircraft: $7.6 million for one Army
aircraft and $15.2 million for one aircraft each for the Navy
and Marine Corps.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $1,434.3 million for Weapons
Procurement, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,562.3 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Hellfire II missile
The budget request contained no funds for Hellfire II
missiles.
The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and
anti-ship weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH-1W
helicopter and by the Navy on the SH-60B helicopter. The
committee notes that, despite increased funding provided by
Congress in fiscal years 1998 and 2000, the Department of the
Navy has not met its inventory requirement for these missiles.
The committee further notes that, as a result of this
situation, the Chief of Naval Operations has identified
procurement of Hellfire II missiles among his top unfunded
readiness requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee
recommends an increase of $55.0 million to procure additional
Hellfire II missiles.
Improved tactical air-launched decoy (ITALD)
The budget request contained $58.9 million for aerial
targets but included no funds for the ITALD.
The ITALD, launched from Navy strike aircraft, is used to
deceive and saturate hostile air defense systems, thereby
enhancing strike aircraft survivability. The committee
understands that only 260 ITALDs have been funded to date
against a Navy requirement for 1500 to 1750 systems. Because
the committee believes that the use of tactical decoys
significantly improves both aircrew survival and mission
success, the committee recommends $68.9 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, to procure additional ITALDs.
Joint standoff weapon (JSOW)
The budget request contained $171.6 million for the JSOW, a
standoff air-to-ground glide weapon that uses global
positioning system satellites and an inertial navigation system
for precision guidance.
The committee understands that the JSOW has performed
flawlessly in over 60 combat deliveries and notes that the
Chief of Naval Operations has identified the procurement of
additional JSOWs among his top two unfunded weapons
requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $206.6 million, an
increase of $35.0 million, to accelerate procurement of
additional JSOWs.
Standoff land attack missile-expanded response (SLAM-ER)
The budget request contained $27.9 million to convert 30
standoff land attack missiles (SLAMs) to the SLAM-ER
configuration. The SLAM-ER is a long-range, air-to-ground,
precision-guided missile that improves the SLAM's range,
accuracy and lethality.
The committee notes that the SLAM-ER has recently completed
its operational test and evaluation with both operationally
effective and suitable ratings. The committee also notes that
the Chief of Naval Operations has included the conversion of 60
SLAMs to the SLAM-ER configuration among his unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001 in order to reduce the risk of
future missile shortages for a major theater war or contingency
operation.
Therefore, the committee recommends $57.9 million, an
increase of $30.0 million, for the conversion of an additional
60 SLAMs to the SLAM-ER configuration.
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $429.6 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps for fiscal year 2001. The
committee recommends authorization of $481.3 million for fiscal
year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Navy ammunition procurement
The budget request contained $295.9 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $317.4 million, an
increase of $21.5 million for the following types of
ammunition, which are among the top unfunded requirements
identified by the Chief of Naval Operations in fiscal year
2001:
[Dollars in millions]
GBU-10/12/16 laser guided bombs/kits.............................. $15.0
MJU-52/B IR expendables........................................... 6.5
Marine corps ammunition procurement
The budget request contained $133.7 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $163.9 million, an
increase of $30.2 million for the following types of
ammunition, which are among the top unfunded requirements
identified by the Commandant of the Marine Corps in fiscal year
2001:
[Dollars in millions]
5.56mm, all types................................................. $3.0
7.62mm, all types................................................. 1.0
APOBS............................................................. 2.0
.50 caliber....................................................... 1.0
Rocket, 83mm HEDP................................................. 10.7
Rocket, 83mm HE Common Practice................................... 4.6
155mm Projectile Extended Range M795.............................. 7.9
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $12,296.9 million for
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The
committee recommends authorization of $11,982.0 million for
fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
LHD-8 amphibious assault ship
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of a
WASP-class (LHD) amphibious assault ship.
The committee understands that the Navy intends to procure
the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship in fiscal year 2005 due to
funding constraints, but notes that both the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have
identified the LHD-8 as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001. The committee further notes that procurement of the LHD-8
before fiscal year 2005 could result in significant savings and
result in more stable funding for the Navy's shipbuilding plan.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $10.0
million for advance procurement and long lead materials for the
construction of LHD-8.
Auxiliary dry cargo ship
The budget request contained $339.0 million for the
procurement of an auxiliary dry cargo ship (ADC(X)).
The committee is satisfied that the Navy has programmed
sufficient resources to provide for engineering and other one-
time costs of the lead shipyard in the ADC(X) program. However,
since the program calls for the ADC(X) class ships to be built
by two shipyards, the committee is concerned that the Navy has
not also provided sufficient resources to fund engineering and
other non-recurring activities unique to the second shipyard.
The committee understands that if these activities are not
adequately funded, the award of the prime contract for the
ADC(X) may be delayed.
The committee is concerned that procurement of ADC(X) ships
in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account does not
adequately reflect the unique logistics and sealift mission of
these vessels. The committee understands that the ADC(X) will
be used to move cargo and other supplies to forward-deployed
fleet units and believes that a vessel performing this mission
would be more appropriately funded in the National Defense
Sealift Fund (NDSF). The committee has therefore transferred
the funds requested for the ADC(X) in the SCN account to the
NDSF and directs the Secretary of the Navy to fund ADC(X)
procurement in the NDSF in future budget requests.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $339.0
million to the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy request and an
increase of $349.0 million to the National Defense Sealift
Fund, including $339.0 million to procure an ADC(X) and $10.0
million to fund engineering and other non-recurring activities
necessary to support construction of this ship class at two
shipyards.
Submarine force level
The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) established a
force of 50 nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs) as
adequate to support the national military strategy and
subsequent budget requests have supported this force level.
However, the 1999 Attack Submarine Study conducted by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff found that the QDR force level is insufficient
to meet near- and long-term operational requirements. Due to
the low rate of attack submarine procurement during the 1990s
any force structure increase above the QFR level over the long-
term would require a sustained increase in VIRGINIA class SSN
procurement.
Although sustained procurement of sufficient numbers of new
submarines is the only long-term solution to the SSN force
structure shortfall, the committee is aware of near-term cost-
effective opportunities to increase the number of submarines in
the fleet. The committee understands that the budget request
contains sufficient funds through fiscal year 2005 to refuel
four LOS ANGELES class SSNs that would otherwise be retired
well before the end of their useful service lives and strongly
supports this effort as well as a longer-term opportunity to
refuel, in lieu of retirement, an additional three LOS ANGELES
class SSNs.
The committee is also aware of the opportunity to refuel
and convert four OHIO class nuclear powered ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs) to nuclear powered cruise missile submarines
(SSGNs) in lieu of retirement. Although its final configuration
would be dictated by arms control considerations, the SSGN
would provide a stealthy conventional strike platform to
support theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINC) requirements for
precision cruise missiles.
The committee supports the use of all reasonable means to
increase the submarine force level through increased
procurement of new submarines as well as refueling and
conversion, in lieu of early retirement, of existing
submarines. The committee believes that this combination of
efforts would provide the most cost-effective way of
maintaining an adequate submarine force that is capable of
meeting current and future challenges to U.S. national security
interests.
Submarine refueling overhauls
The budget request contained $72.3 million for advance
procurement for submarine refueling overhauls but included no
funds for advance procurement for refueling overhauls
associated with the conversion of ballistic missile submarines
to cruise missile submarines.
The committee is aware of the Navy's proposal to convert
four OHIO class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines
(SSBNs) to nuclear powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) as
a means of providing theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) with
increased numbers of cruise missiles for conventional precision
strike missions. The committee notes that a requirement of any
conversion program would be the refueling of the nuclear
reactors of the candidate SSBNs. The committee understands that
the Navy has no experience with refueling OHIO class SSBNs and
that the submarines converted to SSGNs would also be the first
of the class to require refueling.
Therefore, in order to reduce risk in any potential SSGN
conversion program, the committee recommends $86.3 million for
submarine refueling overhauls, an increase of $14.0 million,
for advance planning and procurement for OHIO class submarine
refueling overhauls.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $3,334.6 million for Other
Procurement, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $3,432.0 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radar
The budget request contained $4.9 million for items less
than $5.0 million but contained no funds for the AN/SPS-73 (V)
surface search radar.
The Navy currently operates several different surface
search radars on its ships but has begun the replacement of
these various systems with the AN/SPS-73 (V) radar. The AN/SPS-
73 (V) is a commercial-off-the-shelf system that has improved
performance over current radars and reduced support costs
through standardized logistics and maintenance requirements.
The committee continues to support the accelerated
standardization of surface search radars and recommends an
increase of $14.0 million for the procurement of additional AN/
SPS-73 (V) radars for this purpose.
Aviation life support
The budget request contained $20.4 million for aviation
life support equipment for Navy and Marine Corps aircrews.
The Marine Corps currently uses a mix of aircrew night
vision systems procured during the 1980s and 1990s, some of
which are incompatible with the latest glass cockpit displays
in new fleet aircraft. The Marine Corps is moving toward a
standardized configuration for aircrew night vision equipment,
but currently has an inadequate supply of modern systems. The
committee notes that this shortfall was identified by both the
Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001.
The committee notes that Congress has previously added
funds to this program to facilitate the upgrading of fixed and
rotary wing aircrews with state-of-the-art night vision
systems. The committee supports the continuation of this effort
and recommends an increase of $9.9 million to procure
additional AN/AVS-9 night vision goggles for Marine Corps
aircrews.
Education support equipment
The budget request contained $2.1 million for the virtual
recruiting program, which utilizes computer-based recruiting
kiosks.
The committee understands that the Navy is facing serious
challenges in meeting recruiting goals and has established a
pilot program to use computer-based kiosks to provide potential
recruits with access to information about the Navy in an
interactive format. The committee further understands that the
preliminary results of the pilot project have been very
successful but that the budget request fails to fully fund this
promising program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $4.1 million for
education support equipment, an increase of $2.0 million, to
procure an additional 150 armed forces recruiting kiosks in
order to fully fund the virtual recruiting program.
High-pressure cleaner
The budget request contained $58.9 million for ship support
equipment items less than $5.0 million but included no funds
for high-pressure non-hazardous dry steam solvent-based
cleaners.
The committee is aware that the Navy and the Marine Corps
are each using high-pressure dry steam solvent-based cleaners
facilities to clean turbine engine parts, avionics, printed
circuit boards, and a wide variety of other military equipment
in an environmentally responsible manner. The committee also
understands that the Navy has estimated substantial maintenance
cost savings associated with the use of these cleaners and
recognizes the value of their widespread use.
The committee agrees with the Navy's findings and,
therefore, recommends $60.9 million for ship support equipment
items less than $5.0 million, an increase of $2.0 million, for
the procurement of high-pressure dry steam solvent-based
cleaners.
Joint tactical terminal
The budget request contained $32,000 for the Joint Tactical
Terminal (JTT).
The committee is fully supportive of the Navy's efforts to
field the JTT but is aware that the Navy has a shortfall in
purchasing the required number of terminals.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $6.0 million, and
increase of $6.0 million, to correct this deficiency.
Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)
The budget request contained $15.1 million for weapons
range support but included no funds to procure MRES systems.
The MRES is a high power electronic warfare threat
simulator that is capable of illuminating aircraft, ships and
other signal collection platforms.
The committee notes that Congress provided additional
funding to procure an MRES system each year since fiscal year
1998 in order to upgrade the Navy's electronic warfare testing
and training facilities. The committee supports the
continuation of this modernization effort and recommends an
increase of $7.5 million for the procurement and installation
of one MRES system.
Nuclear attack submarine (SSN) acoustics
The budget request contained $106.6 million for SSN
acoustics but included no funds for the refurbishment and
upgrade of TB-23 submarine towed arrays.
The committee understands that the Navy intends to upgrade
all submarine towed acoustic arrays with the TB-29A array
beginning in 2002 but at a rate that will require the TB-23
array to remain in service for at least the next decade. The
committee further understands that the TB-23 array must be
refurbished and upgraded periodically to maintain the
reliability and effectiveness of this critical acoustic sensor.
Therefore, in order to ensure that the submarine force retains
modern and reliable acoustic sensors until completely outfitted
with the TB-29A array, the committee recommends $114.6 million
for SSN acoustics, an increase of $8.0 million, to sustain the
TB-23 array refurbishment and upgrade program.
Operating forces industrial plant equipment
The budget request contained $2.7 million for operating
forces industrial plant equipment but included no funds for
expeditionary maintenance facilities (EMF).
The committee is aware that the Navy is decommissioning its
repair tenders, thereby limiting its ability to rapidly deploy
a ship and equipment repair capability to support forward
deployed forces. However, the committee is also aware that EMF,
surface and air transportable, self-contained repair and
maintenance facilities that can be operational within 72 hours
of deployment, can meet the Navy's needs for a rapidly
deployable repair and maintenance capability.
The committee fully supports the EMF concept and,
therefore, recommends $7.7 million for industrial plant
equipment, an increase of $5.0 million, to procure seven of the
facilities.
Other training equipment
The budget request included $21.4 million for other
training equipment, of which $16.4 million for the procurement
of equipment to support the Battle Force Tactical Training
(BFTT) program.
The BFTT system allows surface combatants and aircraft
carriers to conduct realistic coordinated training scenarios
using ownship equipment instead of shore-based training
simulators. In fiscal year 2000, Congress provided funds for
upgrades to the BFTT system in order to provide an Air Traffic
Control (ATC) training capability for aircraft carrier crews.
In order to complete this upgrade, the committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million.
Sonobuoys
The budget request contained $49.5 million for the
procurement of sonobuoys, including AN/SSQ-36, AN/SSQ-53E, AN/
SSQ-57, AN/SSQ-62E, AN/SSQ-77, AN/SSQ-101, and Signal
Underwater Sound (SUS) buoys.
The committee notes that the Navy's peacetime annual
requirement for sonobuoys is approximately 100,000 units of all
types, but the budget request would fund about 63,000. The
Navy's low sonobuoy procurement rate continues to fall far
short of annual peacetime anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training
requirements.
The committee is concerned that the supply of sonobuoys
could be quickly exhausted in the event of a major theater
contingency involving airborne ASW operations. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million to address
the sonobuoy shortfall, distributed as follows: $3.0 million
for AN/SSQ-53E, $5.0 million for AN/SSQ-62E, and $10.0 million
for AN/SSQ-77.
Undersea warfare support equipment
The budget request contained $847,000 for undersea warfare
support equipment but included no funds for surface sonar
windows and domes.
The committee understands that the Navy has developed a new
material and production process for surface ship sonar dome
windows because reliable sources for the material previously
used are no longer available. The committee also understands
that it is critical that the Navy validate the new sonar dome
material fabrication process to support orders for spare sonar
dome windows.
Therefore the committee recommends $5.8 million for
undersea warfare support equipment, an increase of $5.0
million, to complete development of production tooling and
fabrication of the first production sonar dome with the new
material system.
WSN-7B ring laser gyro (RLG)
The budget request contained $33.4 million for other
navigation equipment, including $7.4 million for the
procurement of 11 WSN-7 RLGs.
The WSN-7 RLG is the common RLG ship navigation system for
surface ships and submarines.
The committee has recommended a total increase of $52.0
million for the procurement and installation of WSN-7 RLGs over
the four preceding fiscal years. Consistent with its actions in
prior fiscal years, the committee recommends an increase of
$12.0 million for the procurement and installation of
additional WSN-7B RLGs, associated system field change kits,
and simulators. This increase will allow the Navy to accelerate
significantly the replacement of maintenance-intensive WSN-2
conventional gyro navigation systems in surface ships with the
WSN-7B RLG.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $1,171.9 million for
Procurement, Marine Corps for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,254.7 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Command post systems
The budget request contained $9.5 million to procure
equipment for command post systems but included no funds for
additional common end user computer equipment for the Marine
Forces Reserve (MARFORRES).
The MARFORRES is currently implementing state-of-the-art
information system networks to enable greater management of and
communications with remote units. These information systems
have enabled the migration from paper and manual-based business
processes to the network-based flow of information in support
of growing personnel management requirements for pay, medical
entitlements, retention and separation. The committee
understands that additional computer hardware and software,
high speed printers, scanners, and multi-functional phones are
required to expand the employment of these networks and notes
that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified a $2.0
million unfunded requirement for this equipment in fiscal year
2001.
Therefore, the committee recommends $11.5 million, and
increase of $2.0 million, for additional common end user
computer equipment for the MARFORRES.
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
The budget request contained $124.4 million for HMMWVA2s,
which incorporate upgraded electrical, braking, engine, and
transmission improvements as well as a 15-year corrosion
prevention program.
The HMMWV is a multi-service, four-wheel drive utility and
logistics vehicle. The Marine Corps fleet is used for personnel
and weapons transport, medical evacuation, and as an air
defense weapon-mount platform.
The committee understands that a 1997 corrosion study
concluded that of the more than 17,800 HMMWVs procured by the
Marine Corps from 1985 to 1995, 27 percent of the fleet was
unserviceable due to severely corroded frames that no longer
complied with manufacturer specifications. The committee notes
that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified the
accelerated procurement of additional HMMWVA2s to replace these
unserviceable vehicles as his number one ground unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001.
The committee strongly supports this effort and, therefore,
recommends $147.4 million, an increase of $23.0 million, for
additional HMMWVA2s.
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)
The budget request contained $42.6 million to procure IRVs.
The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles
weighing less than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are
required to safely tow an Abrams tank if it is rendered
immobile due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The M88A2
IRV upgrade includes increased engine horsepower, as well as
braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension capabilities
required to safely recover Abrams tanks and other heavy combat
systems.
The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps
has identified a $14.5 million unfunded requirement in fiscal
year 2001 for 5 additional IRVs, which would accelerate the
buyout of the program by one year. Accordingly, the committee
recommends $57.1 million, an increase of $14.5 million, for 5
additional M88A2 IRV upgrades to support future expeditionary
operations.
Material handling equipment
The budget request contained $36.3 million for the
procurement of various types of material handling equipment but
included no funds for the remanufacture or product improvement
of D-7G bulldozers and scrapers.
The D-7G bulldozer/scraper fleet is used throughout Marine
Corps combat engineer and support units for airfield
construction, as well as for combat clearing and debris
excavation.
The committee notes that the service's bulldozer and
scraper fleet is over 15 years old and rapidly deteriorating.
The committee also notes that the D-7G remanufacturing/product
improve program will extend the life of these bulldozers and
scrapers for an additional 10 years.
Consistent with its actions in prior years, the committee
recommends $48.4 million, an increase of $7.0 million, to
remanufacture/product improve 62 D-7G bulldozers and $5.1
million to remanufacture/product improve 45 scrapers.
Modification kits (intelligence)
The budget request contained $5.0 million for modifications
to various tactical intelligence systems, but no funds were
included to procure Joint Surveillance Target and Attack Radar
System (Joint STARS) Common Ground Stations (CGS) or Joint
Service Workstations (JSWS).
The Joint STARS CGS will provide the Marine Air-Ground Task
Force (MAGTF) commander with near-real-time battle space
surveillance and command and control capability by integrating
into a single station the processing of signals, imagery, and
other intelligence received through a data link from the Air
Force's E-8 Joint STARS aircraft radar. The system detects,
locates, tracks, and classifies both moving and stationary
targets beyond the forward line of troops. The JSWS, a
principal component of the Joint STARS CGS, was developed for
fixed-site locations that do not require all of the
communications assets and deployability provided by a CGS. The
committee notes the Commandant of the Marine Corps has
identified an $8.5 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001 to procure 1 CGS and 3 JSWS, which would accelerate the
approved acquisition objective by one year to fiscal year 2001.
The committee is aware of the proven success of the CGS and
understands the additional CGS and three JSWSs will provide the
necessary assets for MAGTFs throughout the Fleet Marine Force,
while greatly enhancing the MAGTF commanders' situational
awareness. Therefore, the committee recommends $13.5 million,
an increase of $8.5 million, for 1 Joint STARS CGS and 3 JSWSs.
Radio systems
The budget request contained $3.1 million for procurement
of radio systems but no funds were included to procure Tactical
Hand Held Radios (THHR).
The THHR is a military-ready, multi-band, secure voice and
data radio that will provide Marine reconnaissance teams, and
squad-/ platoon-size units with a lightweight, standardized,
maintainable communications capability that is interoperable
with numerous Department of Defense legacy communications
radios.
The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps
has identified THHRs as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001, which would meet the entire acquisition objective for
replacing existing obsolete radios. Because the committee
believes that the services must have interoperable
communications in support of the growing number of joint
operation deployments and supports the need for greater
communications capability within small units, the committee
recommends $15.1 million for radio systems, an increase $12.0
million to procure THHRs.
Small unit riverine craft (SURC)
The budget request contained no funds to procure a SURC.
The committee understands that there is a requirement for a
SURC to support Marine Corps operations for a fast, shallow
draft, high capacity craft that is C-130 deployable and that
such a craft would provide Marine units with the capability to
insert combat troops into a riverside environment.
The committee is supportive of this requirement and,
therefore, recommends an increase of $2.0 million to procure a
SURC for the Marine Corps.
Training devices
The budget request contained $30.8 million to procure of
numerous training and simulation systems, but no funds were
included for upgrades to fielded indoor simulated marksmanship
trainers (ISMT).
The ISMT-enhanced (E) will be a deployable, interactive,
three-dimensional simulation-based indoor training system for
individual and small tactical unit marksmanship training.
System enhancements will allow Marines to receive marksmanship
training on all infantry weapons and replicate known-distance
range qualification courses, offensive and defensive combat
situations, and shoot-no-shoot decision-making exercises, all
of which would normally be performed on an outdoor range using
live ammunition. The committee notes that 97 of the Marine
Corps' 603 ISMTs will receive the enhanced upgrade in fiscal
year 2000 and that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has
identified an $8.7 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001 to upgrade the remaining 506 ISMTs.
The committee believes that it is critical for Marines to
maintain high marksmanship standards and that the ISMT-E will
provide the training designed to compliment live-fire
requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends $39.5
million, an increase of $8.7 million, to complete ISMT-E
upgrades.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $9,539.6 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $10,267.2 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
A-10 modifications
The budget request contained $33.9 million for A-10
aircraft modifications but included no funds for the integrated
flight and fire control computer (IFFCC) or for the situation
awareness data link (SADL) for the Air National Guard's (ANG)
A-10 fleet.
The IFFCC is a replacement for the A-10's existing weapons
delivery computer, which has no additional processing power for
future growth. The committee understands that the Air Force
plans to conduct a multi-stage improvement program for the A-10
that will significantly enhance its communications, threat
warning and precision-guided munitions capabilities but will be
unable to proceed with this program without the IFFCC. The
committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has
identified the IFFCC among his top 20 unfunded requirements in
fiscal year 2001 in recognition of its importance to future A-
10 modernization and recommends an increase of $6.8 million for
this purpose.
The SADL provides the ANG A-10 fleet with an all-weather,
secure, jam-resistant, low-cost data link using commercial-off-
the-shelf enhanced position location reporting system radios.
The committee understands that the A-10 SADL would prevent
battlefield fratricide, integrate with the Army and Marine
Corps digitized battlefield, and has growth capability for
future data link upgrades. The committee notes that the Chief
of the Air National Guard has identified the A-10 SADL among
his unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001 and recommends
an increase of $8.6 million for this cost effective
modification.
In total, the committee recommends $49.3 million, an
increase of $15.4 million, for A-10 aircraft modifications.
Aircraft navigational and passenger safety equipment
The budget request contained various amounts in several
aircraft modification budget lines for the procurement and
installation of aircraft navigational and passenger safety
equipment.
The committee has recommended increases for passenger and
navigational safety for several years, supporting the Secretary
of Defense's directive to improve aircraft flight and passenger
safety subsequent to the crash of a cabinet secretary's CT-43
aircraft in 1996. These increases have funded both terrain
avoidance warning systems (TAWS), which project an aircraft's
position relative to the ground and improves pilot situational
awareness by warning of potential ground impact, and traffic
collision and avoidance systems (TCAS), which provide
predictive collision avoidance information regarding an
aircraft's position relative to another aircraft. The committee
notes that other safety upgrades are also planned in the future
years defense program (FYDP) such as cockpit voice recorders,
flight data recorders, and predictive windshear radars.
While the Department of Defense continues to fund these
upgrades in both the fiscal year 2001 budget and the FYDP, the
committee believes that such navigational and passenger safety
improvements should be expedited. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million to accelerate upgrades
of the TAWS, TCAS, cockpit voice recorders, flight data
recorders, and predictive windshear radars on passenger-
carrying aircraft. Additionally, the committee expects the
secretaries of the military departments to report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2001, on the
passenger and navigation safety upgrade status and plans for
each of its passenger-carrying aircraft. This report should
identify which aircraft need to be equipped with TAWS, TCAS,
cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, and predictive
wind shear radars.
C-130 modifications
The budget request contained $91.5 million for C-130
modifications but included no funds for the carry-on situation
awareness data link (SADL) or the AN/APN-242 for the Air
National Guard's (ANG) C-130 fleet.
The carry-on SADL provides the ANG's C-130 aircraft fleet
with an all-weather, secure, jam-resistant, and low-cost data
link using commercial-off-the-shelf enhanced position location
reporting system radios. The committee understands that,
without the carry-on SADL, the ANG's C-130 transport and rescue
aircraft will be incompatible with the Air Force's Air
Expeditionary Force packages, and notes that the Chief of the
ANG has identified the C-130 carry-on SADL among his unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001. Consequently, the committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million to procure carry-on
SADLs for the ANG's C-, EC-, HC-, and MC-130 aircraft fleets.
The AN/APN-242 is a weather and navigation radar that
replaces the 1950's-era AN/APN-59 radar currently installed on
the ANG's C-130 aircraft fleet. The committee understands that
the AN/APN-59, in addition to being obsolete, has a mean-time-
between-failure (MTBF) rate of 40 to 100 hours and is costly to
maintain. The committee also understands that the AN/APN-242
radar has significantly improved performance capabilities, a
projected MTBF rate of 1800 hours, and that maintenance cost
savings associated with the AN/APN-59's replacement will pay
for the AN/APN-242's acquisition within five years. To improve
C-130 mission capability and reduce maintenance costs, the
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for AN/APN-
242 radars for the ANG's C-130 fleet.
In total, the committee recommends $107.5 million, an
increase of $16.0 million, for C-130 modifications.
Compass call block 30/35 mission crew simulator (MCS)
The budget request contained $1.4 million for C-130 post-
production support, but included no funds for a Compass Call
block 30/35 MCS. The EC-130H Compass Call is used to disrupt
enemy command and control communications, and the block 30/35
MCS would provide aircrew training for the current block 30 and
planned block 35 aircraft configurations.
The committee understands that the current EC-130H mission
simulator is an obsolete, block 20 configuration which limits
training effectiveness for block 30- and 35-configured Compass
Call aircraft due to its inability to generate sensitive
mission scenarios typical of actual flying missions. The
committee notes that training in actual block 30-configured EC-
130H aircraft is expensive and for this reason the Air Force
Chief of Staff has identified the Compass Call block 30/35 MCS
among his top unfunded readiness requirements in fiscal year
2001.
Because the committee believes that a state-of-the-art
simulator is required for this high-demand, low-density
aircraft, it recommends $25.1 million, an increase of $23.7
million, to procure a Compass Call block 30/35 MCS.
C-135 modifications
The budget request contained $328.2 million for C-135
modifications but included no funds for reengining KC-135E
aerial refueling aircraft or for the KC-135 carry-on situation
awareness data link (SADL) for the Air National Guard (ANG).
The committee remains a strong supporter of the KC-135
reengining program and understands that reengined KC-135s are
capable of shorter take-offs, operating with higher gross
weights, meeting or exceeding all noise and pollution
standards, and offloading more fuel. The committee notes that
the Chief of the Air National Guard has identified reengining
of the KC-135E among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year
2001. The committee recommends an increase of $52.0 million for
two KC-135E reengining kits.
The KC-135 carry-on SADL provides the ANG's KC-135 tanker
aircraft fleet with an all-weather, secure, jam-resistant, and
low-cost data link using commercial-off-the-shelf enhanced
position location reporting system radios. The committee
understands that without the KC-135 carry-on SADL, ANG tanker
aircraft will be incompatible with the Air Force's Air
Expeditionary Force packages. The committee notes that the
Chief of the Air National Guard has identified the KC-135
carry-on SADL among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year
2001. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to
procure additional SADLs for the ANG's tanker fleet.
In total, the committee recommends $386.2 million, an
increase of $58.0 million, for C-135 modifications.
C-17
The budget request contained $2,211.9 million to procure 12
C-17 aircraft and $266.8 million for advance procurement of 15
aircraft in fiscal year 2002 but included no funds for an
additional weapon system trainer (WST) at the C-17 training
base or for a maintenance training system (MTS) for the Air
National Guard (ANG).
The committee understands that the C-17 training base
currently has three WSTs, but it needs a fourth system to
accommodate the increased pilot production anticipated in
fiscal year 2004 when additional aircraft and pilots are
projected to arrive. The committee notes that the Air Force
Chief of Staff has identified an additional C-17 WST among his
top unfunded readiness requirements in fiscal year 2001. In
order to ensure that the C-17 training base will have
sufficient capacity to meet required pilot production levels,
the committee recommends an increase of $14.9 million for
procurement of an additional WST.
The C-17 MTS is designed to qualify personnel to maintain
the C-17 aircraft. In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-
162), the committee recommended an increase of$3.5 million for
advance procurement of long-lead items for the MTS. The committee
understands that the ANG unit that will receive C-17 aircraft in fiscal
year 2003 requires an MTS for initial qualification of its maintenance
personnel prior to the arrival of the aircraft but notes that the
Department of the Air Force has still not budgeted for this system.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions and to deliver a
maintenance training capability on schedule, the committee recommends
an increase of $11.0 million for the MTS.
In total, the committee recommends $2,237.8 million for the
C-17, an increase of $25.9 million.
C-17 reverse-affiliate units
The committee notes that the Air Force is retiring its
aging C-141 aircraft fleet and replacing it with the C-17,
which was recently combat proven in Operation Allied Force, to
meet the Department of Defense's airlift mobility requirements.
The committee also notes the Air Force's increasing reliance
on, and importance of, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) units
to accomplish the airlift mission and that several reserve
units are scheduled to begin retiring their C-141 aircraft in
fiscal year 2003 without a designated follow-on mission
identified. In light of the current AFRC pilot and technician
recruiting and retention shortfalls, the committee is concerned
that the Secretary of the Air Force has yet to make a time-
sensitive determination of a follow-on mission for those AFRC
units with retiring C-141 aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of the Air
Force to designate a mission for the AFRC units affected by the
retirement of the C-141, especially those units with a joint-
service requirement, and requests the Secretary to strongly
consider the designation of a reverse-affiliate C-17 unit at
bases where one of these units is located. A C-17 reverse-
affiliate unit would permit the AFRC to continue to utilize
existing aircrew and maintenance personnel expertise in its
operations and maintenance responsibilities for AFRC-assigned
C-17 aircraft, while also providing mission-ready aircraft that
could be flown by active duty Air Force aircrews.
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 56
The budget request contained $165.5 million for various RC-
135 and U-2 aircraft modifications but included no funds for
RC-135 training aircraft, an updated C-135 operational flight
trainer (OFT II), RC-135 global air traffic management (GATM)
upgrades, or the theater airborne warning system (TAWS) for the
RC-135 Rivet Joint (RJ).
The committee notes that the theater and functional
commanders-in-chief (CINCs) have repeatedly testified that
their intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
requirements, particularly those supported by ISR aircraft such
as the RC-135 and U-2, are not currently satisfied due to the
limited number of these platforms. The committee understands
that the Air Force does not have a dedicated RC-135 aircrew
training aircraft and that this deficiency contributes to the
limited number of aircraft available to meet CINC requirements.
To increase the availability of RC-135 mission aircraft to the
CINCs, the committee recommends an increase of $44.0 million to
modify two C-135 aircraft into an RC-135 training aircraft
configuration.
The C-135 operational flight trainer (OFT I) is the
aircraft simulation training device for the RC-, OC-, WC-, and
TC-135 pilots. The committee understands that OFT I is obsolete
due to its outdated engine and aircraft avionics configurations
and that OFT II would train aircrews to operate the re-engined
and updated-avionics-configured C-135 model aircraft. The
committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included
the procurement of OFT II among his top five unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of
$9.0 million, of which $6.5 million is for an OFT II and $2.5
million is to equip this OFT II with motion simulation.
RC-135 GATM upgrades include: interference resistant
navigational receivers, global positioning system upgrades, a
traffic collision and avoidance system, radios to permit
reduced vertical separation between aircraft during Atlantic
Ocean transit, cockpit voice recorders, and flight management
system upgrades. The committee understands that, without these
upgrades, RC-135 aircraft will be restricted from flying the
most direct and fuel-efficient ocean routes and altitudes, will
be subject to critical landing-phase navigational radio
interference, and will not be equipped with the Secretary of
Defense-directed safety modifications until after fiscal year
2005. To meet these vital needs, the committee notes that the
Air Force Chief of Staff has included RC-135 GATM upgrades
among his unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001, and
consequently, recommends an increase of $28.4 million for this
purpose.
The TAWS significantly improves the accuracy of ballistic
missile warning on RC-135 RJ, a tactical reconnaissance
aircraft. In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162), the
committee recommended an increase of $17.3 million for the RC-
135 RJ TAWS and believes that continued integration of these
suites is critical to tactical missile defense warning.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million for continued procurement and installation of TAWS
suites on the RC-135 RJ aircraft.
To consolidate RC-135 modifications in DARP, line 56, and
U-2 modifications in DARP, line 80, the committee recommends a
transfer of the $5.1 million budgeted for RC-135 aircraft
modifications in DARP, line 80 into this budget line; and a
transfer of the $18.3 million budgeted for U-2 aircraft
modifications in this line into DARP, line 80. This transfer
results in a $13.2 million decrease to this line and an
increase of $13.2 million in DARP, line 80.
In total, the committee recommends $243.7 million for DARP,
line 56, an increase of $78.2 million for RC-135 modifications.
Finally, the committee is concerned about the Department of
the Air Force's budget plan for the RC-135's joint signals
intelligence avionics family (JSAF) upgrades and notes that the
request would budget for a single JSAF suite for the RC-135 but
additional suites are not planned until fiscal year 2005.
Without full and continuous funding for this upgrade, the
committee understands the first system, if installed onto the
RC-135, would result in a unique RC-135 aircraft configuration
which would increase unit support costs for that aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee believes the new JSAF system should
continue development and testing in the RC-135 systems
integration laboratory and on the U-2 aircraft until the
Department of the Air Force budgets to upgrade all 16 RC-135
aircraft.
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 80
The budget request contained $98.4 million in DARP, line
80, for various U-2 and RC-135 aircraft modifications, of which
$1.8 million was included for senior year electro-optic
reconnaissance system (SYERS) sensor spares and $17.0 million
was included for a joint signals intelligence avionics family
(JSAF) suite for the U-2. However, the budget request did not
include any funds for additional U-2ST aircraft, a two-seat
trainer version of the single-seat U-2S reconnaissance
aircraft.
SYERS is an electro-optic camera system that provides real-
time imagery to national decision makers and tactical forces.
The committee understands that the budget request underfunds
initial deployment spares for the SYERS upgrade by $3.0 million
and, accordingly, recommends an increase of this amount.
The JSAF provides an upgraded information collection
capability for the U-2S. The committee understands that the
budget request is insufficient to procure an entire JSAF suite
and required spares and cabling. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $4.0 million for this purpose.
The committee understands that there are only four U-2STs
and that without an additional U-2ST, the U-2S pilot production
rate does not meet requirements to resolve an existing pilot
shortage. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff
has included an additional U-2ST among his top five unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001 and, accordingly, recommends
an increase of $10.0 million to convert a U-2S into a U-2ST
aircraft.
Including transfers between DARP lines 56 and 80 discussed
elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends $128.6
million, an increase of $30.2 million, for U-2 modifications.
F-15 modifications
The budget request contained $258.2 million for F-15
modifications, of which $37.3 million was included for
modification kits that convert the F100 engine to the F100-220E
configuration. However, the budget request included no funds
for F-15 Bofers launchers (BOL) countermeasure dispenser
systems for the Air National Guard's (ANG) F-15A and B
aircraft, which would significantly improve its survivability.
Conversion kits for the F-15's F100 engine, also known as
``E-kits,'' provide increased thrust, greater reliability,
better fuel efficiency, and reduced operations and maintenance
costs. The committee understands that, without the E-kit
modification, ANG's F-15A/B fleet will be increasingly costly
to operate and maintain, less safe, and have diminished
availability to respond to the Air Force's Air Expeditionary
Force contingency operations. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $70.0 million for E-kits to
accelerate the conversion of the ANG's F-15A/B aircraft engines
to the F100-220E configuration.
The committee understands that the Air Force's test of a
BOL countermeasures dispenser system on the F-15 aircraft
revealed that this system provided a dramatic increase in the
aircraft's chaff and flare capacity and a new preemptive
expendable capability. The committee also understands that the
Air Combat Command has identifiedan urgent requirement for a
preemptive chaff and flare capability on the F-15, and notes that the
Chief of the Air National Guard has included integration of such
capability on F-15A and B aircraft among his unfunded requirements in
fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0
million to integrate the BOL countermeasure dispenser system on
the ANG's F-15A and B aircraft. The committee also recommends
$68.9 million, an increase of $7.6 million, in PE 27134F for F-
15 operational systems development to complete foreign
comparative test activities for integration of this system on
all F-15 aircraft, as reflected in Title II of this report.
In total, the committee recommends $358.2 million, an
increase of $100.0 million for F-15 modifications.
Additionally, the committee notes that the Air Force
modifies its F-15 fleet with a series of individual
modifications rather than through a comprehensive block upgrade
approach, such as the B-2 block modification upgrade program,
in which several modifications are accomplished at one time.
Since the committee believes that an F-15 block upgrade program
would be more efficient, reduce cost, increase aircraft
availability, and increase readiness through a reduction in the
number of different F-15 configurations, it strongly encourages
the Secretary of the Air Force to implement an F-15 block
upgrade program beginning with the Air Force's fiscal year 2002
budget request, and expects the Secretary to report to the
congressional defense committees his plan to implement such a
block upgrade program.
F-15E
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of F-
15E aircraft. The F-15E is a two-seat, missionized-cockpit,
dual-role fighter that retains an air-to-air capability and
adds the systems necessary to meet the requirement for an all-
weather, deep penetration, day/night air-to-surface attack
aircraft.
The committee notes that the Air Force plans to operate its
inventory of 218 F-15Es until 2030, and further notes that the
F-15E fleet has recently experienced very high operational
tempos. The committee believes, therefore, that additional
attrition reserve aircraft should be procured.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of
$149.8 million for two F-15E aircraft.
F-16 modifications
The budget request contained $248.8 million for various F-
16 modifications, of which $6.0 million was included to procure
29 ALE-50 towed decoy launcher pylons. However, the request
included no funds for the LITENING II precision attack
targeting system (PATS) or for airborne video solid-state
recorder systems (AVSRs).
The committee understands that Air National Guard (ANG) F-
16 units equipped with the F-16C block 25 and 30 aircraft have
an immediate shortfall in precision strike capability. The
committee notes that the Chief of the Air National Guard has
identified procurement of additional LITENING II PATS as his
number one unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001. This
system, which consists of a third-generation forward-looking
infrared and a laser spot tracker, will allow ANG block 25 and
30 F-16s to participate in future Air Expeditionary Force
contingency operations. The committee notes that the ANG has a
requirement for 160 LITENING II PATSs, but only 56 have been
funded.
The committee believes the integration of ANG F-16s into
precision strike operations is essential to the Total Force
concept and, therefore, recommends an increase of $25.0 million
to procure 17 additional systems.
The ALE-50 towed decoy pylon enables F-16C aircraft to
carry the ALE-50, a radio-frequency repeater which is used to
decoy an incoming threat missile away from the aircraft. The
committee understands that the ALE-50 was one of the most
effective countermeasure devices used during Operation Allied
Force and that it is credited with saving several aircraft.
Also, the committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has
identified procurement of the ALE-50 towed decoy pylon among
his unfunded modernization requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $18.3 million, an
increase of $12.3 million, to accelerate the production of 111
additional ALE-50 towed decoy pylons.
The AVSR is a commercial off-the-shelf replacement for the
F-16's existing mechanical airborne video tape recorders which,
the committee understands, are difficult to maintain and have
low reliability. The committee also understands that the AVSR
will provide a dramatic improvement in mean time between
failure, has no moving parts which can break or wear out,
requires no scheduled maintenance and will save an estimated
$80 million in life-cycle costs compared to the F-16's current
system.
Therefore, to improve reliability and reduce F-16 airborne
video tape recorder ownership costs, the committee recommends
an increase of $12.0 million for the AVSR.
In total, the committee recommends $298.1 million for F-16
modifications, an increase of $49.3 million.
F-16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS)
The budget request contained $25.5 million for F-16 post
production support, of which $5.0 million was included for one
IAIS system.
The F-16 IAIS system is a mobile test station used to
diagnose and repair F-16 avionics problems at deployed
locations. Because the F-16 IAIS uses fewer people and requires
less cargo space for transit than the existing avionics
intermediate shop, deployments of F-16 units which have the
IAIS require less airlift support.
The committee understands that 63 F-16 IAISs are required
but notes that only 48 have been--or are planned to be--
procured in the future years defense program. The committee
notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified
additional IAISs among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year
2001.
Therefore, the committee recommends $49.5 million, an
increase of $24.0 million for five additional F-16 IAIS
systems, including two for active, two for Air National Guard,
and one for Air Force Reserve units.
F-16C
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of F-16C aircraft, the primary multi-mission fighter aircraft
of the Air Force.
The committee notes its continuing strong support for the
F-16C program and that Congress provided an increase of $24.0
million in fiscal year 2000 for advance procurement of
additional aircraft in fiscal year 2001. Finally, the committee
notes that the Department of the Air Force planned to procure
20 additional aircraft (10 each in fiscal years 2002 and 2003)
but has subsequently revised its plan and now intends to
procure six aircraft in fiscal year 2003 and seven in each of
fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
Therefore, consistent with its previous actions, and noting
that both the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Chief of the Air
National Guard have identified additional F-16C aircraft among
their top unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001, the
committee recommends an increase of $51.7 million and expects
that the Department will combine these funds with the $24.0
million appropriated for advance procurement in fiscal year
2000 for to procure three F-16C block 50/52 aircraft.
The committee observes that the Senate Committee on
Appropriations report on H.R. 2521 (S. Rept. 102-154) stated,
``the Committee directs that F-16 aircraft scheduled to be
delivered to the Air Force during fiscal year 1992 be turned
over to those Air National Guard F-16's units which served in
Operation Desert Storm.'' The committee further observes that
the statement of the managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 2521 (H. Rept. 102-328) stated, ``The Committee
of Conference directs the Air Force to initiate, immediately in
the first quarter of fiscal year 1992, the modernization
process for those Air National Guard F-16 units that deployed
to Operation Desert Storm, in priority over any nondeploying
unit, leading to equipping these deploying units with updated
F-16 aircraft. Units with the Close Air Support (CAS) mission
will be equipped with Block 30 aircraft.'' The committee notes
that the Air Force complied with the aforementioned directives
but subsequently reversed that action when it removed the block
30 aircraft of the 174th Fighter Wing and replaced them with
less capable block 25 aircraft.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to assign F-16 block 40, or later model F-16 aircraft, to
Air National Guard units whose capabilities have been
downgraded as a result of the substitution of older block
aircraft when F-16C block 50/52 aircraft procured in fiscal
year 2001 are delivered to the Air Force.
E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS)
The budget request contained no funds for advance
procurement to continue E-8C Joint STARS aircraft production.
The E-8C Joint STARS aircraft provides near real-time
surveillance and targeting information on moving and stationary
ground targets, enabling battlefield commanders to quickly make
and execute engagement decisions. Although its situational
awareness value to commanders has prompted the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) to validate a requirement
for 19 aircraft, the Department of the Air Force has budgeted
only for 15.
While the committee is encouraged that the Department has
funded the 15th Joint STARS aircraft in its budget request, it
remains concerned that, despite the JROC-validated requirement
for 19 aircraft, the Department plans to shut down the E-8C
production line after this aircraft is produced. These ``low-
density, high demand'' aircraft are among the most sought-after
assets by the regional commanders-in-chief for a rangeof
reconnaissance and surveillance operations and have been combat proven
in the recent Operation Allied Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0
million for advance procurement of a 16th E-8C Joint STARS
aircraft.
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
The budget request contained $28.2 million for other
aircraft modifications but included no funds for the LESPA.
Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life,
the committee continues to believe that the Department of the
Air Force will realize substantial life cycle cost savings with
LESPA, compared to existing parachutes, and has previously
recommended procurement of LESPAs for the Navy's P-3 and E-2
aircraft.
Consistent with its previous actions to reduce ownership
costs, the committee recommends $35.2 million for other
aircraft modifications, an increase of $7.0 million for LESPAs
to replace existing parachutes in C-130, C-141, C-5 and KC-135
aircraft.
Predator
The budget request contained $22.1 million for procurement
of the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system.
The committee understands that the Air Force is
experiencing vanishing vendor problems with some of the current
hardware in the Predator ground station and that there is a
requirement to control multiple Predator aircraft
simultaneously from a single ground station. The committee is
also aware that there are required air vehicle reliability and
maintainability upgrades that have not been funded.
Consequently, the committee recommends $34.1 million for
the Predator, an increase of $12.0 million for upgrading the
current ground stations with commercial hardware, for
integrating the capability to control multiple UAVs
simultaneously and for improving air vehicle reliability and
maintainability.
Finally, the committee is aware that a jointly funded
effort between the contractor and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration has developed a turbo-prop variant of the
Predator to be followed by a jet-powered variant. Both of these
Predator-B variants use the current Predator ground station,
avionics, datalink, and control software but provide major
performance improvements over the current aircraft, including a
maximum speed in excess of 200 knots and a service ceiling to
45,000 feet. While the current Predator has clearly proven its
military worth, given these performance improvements, a
Predator-B would appear to satisfy many niche missions for
which the current vehicle is not well-suited. The committee
believes that a Predator-B would be a valuable addition to the
Predator fleet and that a mix of Predator-A and -B aircraft
would cost effectively satisfy all Predator mission
requirements.
Therefore, the committee requests the Secretary of the Air
Force to conduct an assessment of the utility of a Predator-B
aircraft, including the benefits or problems operating a mixed
Predator fleet. The committee further requests the Secretary
report his findings to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees concurrent with the submission of the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
T-3A modifications
The budget request contained $1.9 million for T-3A aircraft
modifications.
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
has removed the T-3A from service for screening prospective
pilot candidates prior to entry into undergraduate pilot
training. Consequently, the committee recommends no funding for
T-3A modifications, a decrease of $1.9 million.
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $638.8 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $638.8 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $3,061.7 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $3,046.7 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AGM-65 modifications
The budget request contained $2.0 million to convert 200
AGM-65G missiles to the AGM-65K configuration.
The AGM-65 is a precision guided tactical missile employed
on the F-16 and A-10 aircraft. The ``G'' configuration has an
infrared target seeker that can be upgraded to the ``K''
configuration, which uses an updated electro-optical (EO)
seeker. The ``B'' configuration has an obsolete EO target
seeker that can be upgraded to the ``H'' configuration, which
also uses an updated EO seeker. Since the committee understands
that over 5300 AGM-65s were fired in Operation Desert Storm and
over 800 in Operation Allied Force, it believes that the
current upgrade rate can neither meet future operational
requirements nor provide sufficient missiles for training.
Consistent with its prior year actions in adding funds for
these upgrades, the committee recommends $7.0 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, for conversion to both the AGM-65H
and K configurations, of which some missiles should be procured
for Air National Guard pilot training.
Medium launch vehicle (MLV)
The budget request contained $55.9 million for MLV launch
operations.
The committee notes that the MLV is used for Global
Positioning System (GPS) satellite launch operations and that,
due to the restructuring of the GPS program, GPS launches have
been delayed. Consequently, the committee believes that the
budget request contains funds in excess of MLV program
requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends $45.9 million
for MLV, a reduction of $10.0 million.
Titan
The budget request contained $469.7 million for the Titan
launch vehicle and launch operations.
The committee notes that the management contingency funding
request for the Titan program is substantially larger than that
of other programs of comparable maturity and believes that the
budget request contains funds in excess of requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends $459.7 million, a reduction
of $10.0 million.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $7,699.1 million for Other
Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $7,869.9 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)
The budget request contained $74.8 million for ADPE but
included no funds for the spare parts production and re-
procurement system (SPARES), a web-based, industry-standard
electronic storage and management system.
The committee understands that SPARES has enabled parts
procurement times to be reduced from 90 to 15 days and field
maintenance response times to be reduced from 14 days to only a
few hours. The committee continues to consider these figures
impressive as it did when recommending increased funding for
SPARES in its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162) for fiscal
year 2000.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee
recommends $84.8 million, an increase of $10.0 million, to
continue procurement of the SPARES.
AN/FPS-117 radar beacon replacement
The budget request contained $54.4 million for
communications electronics modifications but included no funds
for replacement of beacons on AN/FPS-117 radars. The AN/FPS-117
is a minimally attended, long-range radar system used to
provide air defense and air traffic control in the Arctic
regions of Canada and Alaska.
The committee understands that the AN/FPS-117's beacons,
which provide identification friend or foe information to
military air defense controllers as well as altitude and
aircraft identification to civilian air traffic controllers,
are increasingly unsupportable due to out-of-production parts
and do not meet Federal Aviation Administration regulations for
air traffic control.
The committee believes these radars should not be allowed
to deteriorate and, therefore recommends $69.4 million, an
increase of $15.0 million, to begin a program for integration,
testing and replacement of AN/FPS-117 radar beacons.
Eagle vision
The budget request included no funds for procuring the
processing hardware necessary to complete the Eagle Vision 4
imagery system.
Eagle Vision is a ground station that receives and
processes imagery from commercial remote sensing satellites.
The committee fully supports the Eagle Vision commercial
imagery initiative, which has provided unique, unclassified
imagery support to meet theater and service requirements that,
due to higher priorities, cannot be met by other technical
means. The committee believes that this initiative needs to be
fully funded to continue such support.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for completing the Eagle Vision 4 processor
installation.
Rivet joint mission trainer (RJMT)
The budget request contained $12.8 million for RC-135
Defense Aerial Reconnaissance Program procurement but included
no funds to provide a forward-deployed training capability for
the RJMT, the primary RC-135 Rivet Joint (RJ) ground training
simulator.
The RC-135 RJ is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft that
provides real-time intelligence to combat forces. The committee
understands that the procurement of an enhanced field
exportable training system (EFETS) would improve training and
readiness by allowing deployed RC-135 RJ crewmembers to use
existing post-mission ground data processing equipment to
function as an RJMT. Since procurement of an additional RJMT
for deployed locations would not be required, the committee
further understands that the EFETS would save the Air Force
$27.4 million and notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has
included $15.5 million for the EFETS among his top five
unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $28.3 million, an
increase of $15.5 million for this purpose.
Senior scout
The budget request contained $5.5 million for procurement
of intelligence communications equipment, including $2.0
million for procurement of spares and replacement equipment for
the Senior Scout tactical reconnaissance aircraft.
The committee is pleased that the Air Force has decided to
retain the Senior Scout reconnaissance capability to augment
the high demand/low density airborne intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) fleets in the reserve
component. However, the committee is disturbed that the Air
Force has not added funding to upgrade the Senior Scout to more
effectively interoperate with other ISR aircraft and, more
importantly, the combat aircraft it supports.
Therefore, the committee recommends $13.7 million for
intelligence communications equipment, an increase of $8.2
million for Senior Scout collection and dissemination upgrades
and for the addition of a deployable ground data reduction
system.
Situation awareness data link (SADL) gateway for the theater air
control system (TACS)
The budget request contained $15.4 million for TACS
improvement but included no funds to initiate a program for the
SADL gateway for the Air National Guard's (ANG) TACS.
The SADL gateway for the ANG's TACS would use commercial-
off-the-shelf enhanced position location reporting system
radios, a laptop-sized computer, and an integrated software
package to provide datalink-equipped ground assets with friend
or foe track identification when an aircraft's transponder is
not operating. This capability would enable ANG TACS
participants on the ground to view the entire air battle
picture. The committee understands that this system would help
prevent battlefield fratricide and notes that the Chief of the
Air National Guard has identified the SADL gateway for the
ANG's TACS among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $19.8 million, an
increase of $4.4 million, to initiate a SADL gateway program
for the ANG's TACS.
Supply asset tracking system (SATS)
The budget request contained $15.1 million for mechanized
material handling equipment but included no funds for SATS.
SATS provides the capability to quickly and accurately
identify and locate personnel, equipment and supplies through
the use of commercial automated information technology. The
committee understands that this system enhances productivity,
shortens inventory cycles, and allows real-time inventory
updates.
The committee notes that Congress has provided additional
funds for SATS installation over the past two years and
accordingly, recommends $27.1 million, an increase of $12.0
million, to continue the installation of this system at Air
Force bases worldwide.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $2,275.3 million for
Procurement, Defense-Wide for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $2,309.1 million for fiscal year
2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Automated document conversion system (ADCS)
The budget request contained no funds for ADCS.
The committee recognizes that the ADCS program continues to
perform a critical role in the attainment of the Department's
goal for achieving a digitally integrated, paperless
environment by 2002. Although the ADCS is the Department's
single most productive program in converting the vast remaining
inventories of legacy engineering drawings into more useful
computerized formats, the committee understands that, a
significant conversion backlog remains in each service.
Therefore, in order to reduce this backlog, the committee
recommends an increase of $40.0 million to continue the ADCS
program.
Counternarcotics discreet operations radio (CONDOR)
The budget request contained no funds for the CONDOR, a
mobile communications system that allows encrypted as well as
non-encrypted transmissions in a single device and includes a
net broadcast capability for one-to-many communications similar
to handheld radios. CONDOR addresses the Department of
Defense's requirement to have secure and net-mode mobile
communications in a device that resembles a normal cellular
telephone while reducing the Department's need to maintain
unique expensive wireless networks.
The committee understands that NSA has procured a small
number of these devices; however, additional devices are
required. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$6.0 million for additional CONDOR procurement.
Patriot advanced capability 3 (PAC-3)
The budget request contained $365.5 million for acquisition
of the PAC-3 system and 40 PAC-3 missiles. The PAC-3 system is
the only theater missile defense (TMD) system nearing
operational deployment that is capable of defeating current
sophisticated ballistic missile threats.
The committee notes that the Director of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization has identified facilitization of
the PAC-3 production line and additional procurement of PAC-3
missiles as unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. The
committee believes that additional funds would provide both
manufacturing efficiencies prior to full rate production of the
PAC-3 as well as inventory growth to meet emerging threats.
Because of the near-term importance of the PAC-3 for TMD,
the committee recommends $430.7 million, an increase of $35.2
million for procurement of eight additional PAC-3 missiles and
$30.0 million for additional facilitization of the PAC-3
production line.
Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC)
The budget request contained $32.3 million for special
operations forces (SOF) intelligence systems but included no
funds for the PICRC.
The PICRC integrates commercial-off-the-shelf mapping and
display software, desktop computers, hand-held computing
devices, and wireless communications to enable SOF operators to
employ high-resolution imagery for precision navigation,
annotate real-time visual observations, and relay information
to command elements.
The committee understands that this system would
significantly enhance SOF capabilities to accurately collect,
quickly report, and promptly act upon real-time intelligence
data. Consequently, the committee recommends $38.3 million, an
increase of $6.0 million, for procurement of PICRC systems.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained no funds for Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction, Defense for fiscal year 2001. The
committee recommends authorization of $877.1 million for fiscal
year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
As described elsewhere in this report, the committee
recommends transferring the budget request of $1,003.5 million
for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army (CAMD, A)
to Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD,
D), and recommends a total of $877.1 million for the program.
The committee notes the progress during the last fiscal
year in the continuing effort to dispose of the U.S. stockpile
of lethal chemical agents and munitions and of chemical warfare
related materiel, while ensuring maximum protection of the
public, personnel involved in the destruction and the
environment. Nearly 20 percent of the original stockpile of
31,495 tons of chemical agents has been destroyed and 90
percent of the stockpile is under contract for destruction.
The committee continues to be concerned about total cost of
the chemical agents and munitions destruction program
(currently estimated at $14.9 billion). Section 141 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106-65) included several measures to increase the
flexibility of the program with respect to the disposition of
chemical stockpile destruction facilities and the destruction
of non-stockpile chemical agents, munitions or related
materials in these facilities. The provision required the
Secretary of Defense to assess the program and report to the
Congress by March 1, 2000, the measures taken, or planned to be
taken, under existing law and recommendations for additional
legislation to reduce significantly program costs and to meet
U.S. obligations under the CWC. The section further provided
for a review and assessment by the Comptroller General of the
United States of program execution and financial management for
each element of the program. The committee intends to use these
reports as the basis for further review of the program later
this year.
The committee continues to believe that, in order to ensure
the maximum protection of the public, personnel involved in the
destruction of the stockpile, and the environment, the
Department should proceed with destruction of the stockpile as
rapidly as is technically and programmatically feasible.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the Secretary of
Defense carry out the chemical agents and munitions destruction
program in accordance with the following priorities:
Execution of the baseline chemical stockpile disposal
project and the alternative technologies project at those sites
selected and approved for use of those technologies; and
Preparation for pilot testing of those ACWA technologies
which have the greatest likelihood of implementation and, if
implemented, of meeting the destruction goals established by
the CWC.
Chemical stockpile disposal project
The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions
destruction program included $105.1 million in procurement and
$483.6 million in operations and maintenance funding for the
chemical stockpile disposal project. The committee recommends
the budget request for the chemical stockpile disposal project.
Chemical stockpile emergency preparedness project (CSEPP)
The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions
destruction program included $600,000 in procurement funds for
minor replacement equipment and $66.7 million for CSEPP
operations and maintenance.
The committee notes that funds provided for CSEPP in fiscal
years 1999 and 2000 were subject to reductions of approximately
9 percent and 8 percent, respectively, as a pro-rata share of
reductions to the CAMD, A account. Because of the potential
impact of such reductions on the safety of those living and
working near or on the chemical stockpile storage and
destruction sites, the committee directs that funding for CSEPP
shall be at the requested level unless otherwise specifically
noted.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a total of $600,000
in CAMD, D-Procurement, and $66.7 million in CAMD, D-Operations
and Maintenance, for CSEPP, as a Congressional special interest
item.
Alternative technologies and approaches project
The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions
destruction program included $135.2 million for development of
alternative technologies and approaches for the disposal of
bulk chemical agents stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland, and Newport, Indiana. The committee recommends the
budget request for the alternative technologies and approaches
project.
Non-stockpile chemical materiel project
The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions
destruction program included $60.2 million in research and
development, $16.2 million in procurement, and $47.5 million in
operations and maintenance funds for the non-stockpile chemical
materiel project.
The committee notes that the Army has destroyed a large
portion of its existing non-stockpile chemical warfare materiel
and that approximately 1,400 non-stockpile chemical munitions
are currently in storage awaiting destruction. However, because
of technical issues, cost increases, and delays in obtaining
state permits, program officials are considering alternate
disposal methods, including the use of chemical stockpile
disposal facilities.
The committee is aware that an independent assessment of
the non-stockpile project recommends seeking appropriate
environmental permit language to allow destruction of non-
stockpile materiel at the chemical stockpile disposal
facilities. The assessment also recommends examination of the
schedule and cost risks of the non-stockpile project to
quantify the potential program risks, ultimate costs, and time
to complete the project. The committee believes that these
issues must be addressed and serious consideration given to
destruction of non-stockpile chemical materiel in
stockpiledisposal facilities before proceeding further with development
and acquisition of integrated transportable treatment systems for non-
stockpile chemical materiel.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a total of $47.5
million for the non-stockpile chemical materiel project, a
decrease of $60.2 million for non-stockpile chemical materiel
project research and development and a decrease of $16.2
million for non-stockpile chemical materiel project
procurement.
Chemical agent identification sets
The committee notes that approximately 10,000 chemical
agent identification sets (CAIS) and components, which were
used to train soldiers in defensive responses to a chemical
attack, are in storage awaiting destruction, and that the
Army's baseline approach for treating and disposing of CAIS has
been to develop a mobile treatment system in the non-stockpile
chemical materiel project. The committee has reviewed the
National Research Council (NRC)'s report ``Disposal of Chemical
Agent Identification Sets,'' which evaluates the Army's 1998
report to Congress on alternative approaches for the treatment
and disposal of CAIS. The NRC recommends that the Army
reconsider its interpretation of CAIS as chemical warfare
materiel under section 1512 of Title 50, United States Code,
evaluate the technical feasibility of non-incineration
technologies for CAIS disposal, insure the active involvement
of public and other stakeholder groups CAIS project decision,
and consider the potential use of chemical stockpile
destruction facilities for CAIS disposal.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to address
the Council's recommendations in the next annual status report
on the disposal of chemical weapons and materiel.
Assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA)
The budget request for chemical agents and munitions
destruction contains $79.0 million for ACWA research and
development, including $50.0 million for engineering design
studies for three additional alternative technologies to be
demonstrated in accordance with the statement of managers that
accompanied the conference report on H.R. 2561 (H. Rept. 106-
371).
The committee has reviewed the progress in the ACWA program
to identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to
the baseline incineration process in accordance with Title
VIII, section 8065 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208) and to conduct evaluations of
three additional alternative technologies.
The committee notes the NRC's ``Review and Evaluation of
Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled
Chemical Weapons'' dated August 1999, which concluded that the
primary alternative technologies can decompose the chemical
agents of concern with the required destruction efficiencies;
however, testing, verification, and integration beyond the 1999
demonstration phase would be necessary. The NRC also concluded
that an extraordinary commitment of resources would be required
to complete destruction of the assembled chemical weapons
stockpile (using any of the ACWA technology packages) in time
to meet the current deadline established by the CWC.
The committee notes that the NRC's ``Supplemental Review,''
dated March 2000, of the three technologies from the 1999
demonstration concluded that, while the two hydrolysis-based
technologies showed promise, none of the technology packages
was ready for integrated pilot programming, and the tests were
not conducted for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate
reliability and long-term operations. The committee notes that
the two hydrolysis-based technologies are currently in the
engineering design studies phase and that a site-specific
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which includes both the
baseline incineration and hydrolysis options, is being
submitted for the Pueblo, Colorado, chemical stockpile
destruction facility in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A NEPA record of decision is
expected in May 2001, approximately 15 months from the date the
EIS was filed.
The committee notes that contract awards for demonstration
of the three additional alternative technologies were made in
February 2000 and a report to Congress of the results of the
demonstration is planned for March 2001. Based on this schedule
and noting the concerns raised by the NRC regarding the need
for testing, verification, and integration beyond the
demonstration phase, the committee believes there is no
requirement to begin preliminary engineering design studies for
the three additional alternatives during fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $29.0 million for
ACWA program research and development, a decrease of $50.0
million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sections 101-107--Authorization of Appropriations
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
2001 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter into multiyear procurement (MYP) contracts for the M2A3
Bradley Fighting Vehicle in fiscal year 2001 and the UH-60
Blackhawk and Navy CH-60 Knighthawk utility helicopters, as the
Department of the Navy's executive agent, in fiscal year 2002.
This section would also prohibit the Secretary of the Army from
executing a M2A3 Bradley MYP contract until a successful
completion of the vehicle's initial operational test and
evaluation and certification by the Secretary to the
congressional defense committees that the vehicle met all of
its required test parameters.
Section 112--Increase in Limitation on Number of Bunker Defeat
Munitions that May be Acquired
This section would amend section 116 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-
337) to increase the number of bunker defeat munitions that may
be acquired by the Army from 6,000 contingency rounds to 8,500
contingency rounds.
Section 113--Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative
This section would modify section 193 of the Armament
Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Act of 1992 (Public
Law 102-484) by extending the initiative through fiscal year
2002. The provision would also expand the purposes of the ARMS
Act beyond the current facilities identified in Section 193 to
include the Army manufacturing arsenals. Finally, the provision
would modify Section 194 of the ARMS Act to allow the Secretary
of the Army to enter into long term facilities use contracts
and accept non-monetary consideration in lieu of rental
payments for use of facilities. The provision would require
that the Secretary of the Army provide a report to the
Congressional defense committees by July 1, 2001, on the
implementation of the arsenal contracts provided by the ARMS
Act authority.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Submarine Force Structure
This section would prohibit the retirement of any Los
Angeles class nuclear powered attack submarine with less than
30 years of active commissioned service. This section would
also require the President to report to Congress on the
submarine force structure required to support the national
military strategy and the acquisition and overhaul requirements
necessary to achieve and maintain such a force.
Section 122--Virginia Class Submarine Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a contract for the procurement of five Virginia
class submarines during fiscal years 2003 through 2006.
Section 123--Retention of Configuration of Certain Naval Reserve
Frigates
This provision would require the Secretary of the Navy to
configure and equip the Naval Reserve FFG-7 Flight I and II
frigates remaining in active service with the complete organic
weapon system for these vessels as specified in the Navy's
Operational Requirements Document and retain these frigates in
their current locations.
Section 124--Extension of Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh
Burke Class Destroyers
This section would authorize an extension of the existing
multiyear procurement contract for the DDG-51 destroyer program
through fiscal year 2005. The section would authorize the
procurement of three ships per year through fiscal year 2001
and the procurement of up to three ships per year from fiscal
year 2002 through 2005.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 131--Annual Report on Operational Status of B-2 Bomber
This section would repeal section 112 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991
(Public Law 101-89). This section would further require the
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report on the B-2
bomber that would include assessments related to B-2
capabilities; technologies needed to enhance B-2 capabilities
and the adequacy of technology investments to enhance these
capabilities; and the consistency of such technology
investments with the Air Force bomber roadmap and the report of
the 1998 Long Range Airpower panel submitted pursuant to the
requirements of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
1998 (Public Law 105-56).
Subtitle E--Joint Programs
Section 141--Study of Production Alternatives for the Joint Strike
Fighter Program
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to Congress providing the results of a study of
production alternatives for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft
program and the effects on the tactical fighter aircraft
industrial base of each alternative considered.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $37,862.4 million for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E),
representing a decrease of $426.7 million to the amount
provided for fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends
$39,309.2 million, an increase of $1,446.8 million from the
budget request.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 request for
RDT&E funding represents the first increase in the budget
request for RDT&E funding by the Administration in five years.
Although this request approaches the level of funding provided
by Congress in recent years, a number of important priorities
are identified by the services as unfunded or underfunded. The
committee has placed its emphasis on recommending increases to
the request, where appropriate, to address the highest unfunded
priorities identified by each of the military service chiefs,
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Special
Operations Command, and other defense agencies prevented by
funding constraints from investing in needed advanced
technology.
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense continues to place higher priority on the allocation of
budgetary resources to research and development activities of
some defense agencies than on those of the military services.
The committee believes that the Department has not provided
sufficient justification to support imbalances in funding
levels between the defense agencies and the military services,
and, therefore, recommends correcting these imbalances by
maintaining funding of several defense agencies at the levels
originally projected by the Department for fiscal year 2001 in
the budget estimates provided to Congress one year ago.
The budget request contained $7,543.2 million for defense
science and technology, including all defense-wide and military
service funding for basic research, applied research, and
advanced development. The committee notes that this amount
represents a decrease of $853.3 million from the amount
provided in fiscal year 2000. As outlined elsewhere in this
report, the committee continues to be disturbed by the growing
number of military service research and development programs
that have been reduced or eliminated as a result of
insufficient research and development funding, and is
particularly concerned with the low level of science and
technology funding. The committee views defense science and
technology investment as critical to maintaining U.S. military
technological superiority in the face of growing and changing
threats to national security interests around the world.
While the budget request for RDT&E activities represents a
significant reversal in the five-year trend of decline
experienced by the services, the committee believes that many
important programs have already experienced unnecessary cost
and schedule growth as a direct result of unjustified funding
constraints. The committee strongly recommends that the
Secretary of Defense thoroughly review the Department's
modernization investment strategy to ensure proper balance
between the services and defense-wide agencies, and between
legacy systems and the technological advances critical to the
future superiority of the nation's military forces.
Army RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $5,260.3 million for Army
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $5,500.2
million, an increase of $239.9 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Army
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Army request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced artillery systems
The budget request contained $355.3 million in PE 63854A
for artillery systems, and $23.2 million in PE 63635M for
ground combat support systems, including $12.1 million for the
lightweight 155mm towed howitzer.
The committee notes that the Army and Marine Corps have
identified a need for lighter, more lethal, more mobile, and
strategically more deployable artillery systems to support
their complementary forces. The committee further notes the
joint Army-Marine Corps program with the United Kingdom to
develop a new lightweight 155mm towed howitzer as a replacement
for the aging and operationally deficient M198 towed howitzer
for both the Marine Corps and the Army. The committee is aware
that the lightweight 155mm towed howitzer has already been
successfully transported by the MV-22 Osprey to demonstrate its
ability to be rapidly transported on the battlefield. The
committee notes that the lightweight 155mm howitzer will
incorporate a modern fire-control system, not available in the
M198, which will allow the howitzer to be emplaced within two
minutes, and immediately fired with greatly increased accuracy.
The committee also notes the Army's highest priority
effort, the procurement of a medium weight brigade force and
supports this effort to develop a capability to rapidly and
appropriately respond to global threats. The Army has confirmed
a requirement for a highly capable fire support for this new
force but must rely initially on the towed M198 howitzer until
the lightweight 155mm development is complete.
The committee supports the rapid fielding of the
lightweight 155mm towed howitzer for both the new Army medium
weight brigades and for the Marine Corps, and is aware that the
Marine Corps has stated a need to conduct additional testing
with the United Kingdom and the Army to address at-sea
environment concerns. The committee recommends an increase of
$3.2 million in PE 63635M for the lightweight 155mm howitzer.
The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Army
expedite development of the fire control system for the
lightweight 155mm towed howitzer, within available funds, so
that it will be incorporated from the beginning of lightweight
155mm production.
Advanced battery technology
The budget request contained $23.9 million in PE 62705A for
electronics and electronic devices.
The committee notes that the Army and other services have
identified a steady growth in requirements for affordable
higher performance energy storage devices. The committee also
notes that industrial development efforts are maturing a wide
array of new battery technologies, including bi-polar wafer
cell nickel-metal hydride technology. This emerging power
supply technology offers significant improvements in storage/
weight and discharge characteristics that are needed to meet
emerging defense needs.
The committee notes that the Army is the designated
executive agent for development of power supply technologies
and recommends $23.9 million in PE 62705A for electronics and
electronic devices, of which $1.0 million shall be available
for development of bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride
technology.
Aircrew coordination training
The budget request contained $3.1 million in PE 63007A for
manpower, personnel, and training, but included no funding for
aircrew coordination training (ACT).
The committee notes with concern the adverse trend in the
Army aviation safety record and strongly supports efforts such
as the ACT program to enhance flight safety. The committee
recommends $6.1 million in PE 63007A, an increase of $3.0
million for aircrew coordination training.
Apache Longbow focused modernization program
The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for
aircraft modification and product improvement, but included no
funds for a focused Apache Longbow modernization program.
The committee is aware that despite the significant
capability of the Apache Longbow, some component systems within
the Apache fleet have not been modernized as part of the
Longbow program. Several of these systems, based on older
technology, are responsible for escalating operation and
maintenance costs, and reduced overall aircraft performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.4 million in PE
23744A for a focused Apache Longbow modernization effort as
part of the Army's aviation modernization program.
Army tactical unmanned aerial vehicles
The budget request contained $29.4 million in PE 35204A for
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV).
The committee notes that the Army just completed a
successful competitive selection for an off-the-shelf TUAV. The
committee notes that the Army will place increasing reliance on
its TUAV and needs to field the best possible system including
sensors.
The committee recommends $33.4 million in PE 35204A, an
increase of $4.0 million for preplanned product improvements
and sensor development.
Breacher system
The budget request contained no funds in PE 64649A or for
the procurement of the Breacher system.
The Breacher, an M-1 Abrams tank chassis-based vehicle,
will be used by combat engineers to clear minefields and
complex obstacles on the forward edge of the battlefield. This
vehicle is designed to replace several other existing breaching
systems and provides increased capability to maneuver with the
armor forces it supports.
Although the committee understands that the Breacher was
terminated to fund Army transformation priorities, the
committee notes that this system is the second highest unfunded
modernization requirement identified by the Army Chief of Staff
in fiscal year 2001.
The committee believes that termination of the Breacher was
shortsighted, and therefore recommends an increase of $59.6
million in PE 64649A to complete engineering and manufacturing
development and $20.0 million in procurement to begin
production line facilitization.
Chinook helicopter modification and improvement
The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for
aircraft modification and product improvement programs,
including $37.2 million for other CH-47F Chinook improved cargo
helicopter (ICH), but included no funds for the CH-47D Chinook
helicopter product improvements.
The committee notes that the CH-47F Chinook improved cargo
helicopter program will upgrade engines, airframe and avionics
of approximately 300 CH-47D Chinook helicopters. The committee
is aware that the Army plans to protect helicopters, including
the ICH, from the serious threat posed by infrared guided
missiles by acquiring the Advanced Threat Infrared
Countermeasures/Common Missile Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS)
that includes portions of the existing joint service ALE-47
programmable countermeasure dispenser. However, the committee
is aware that the ATIRCM/CMWS development is delayed and the
system may not be available for several years. The committee
believes it is unsatisfactory for the Army to delay procurement
of the proven ALE-47 countermeasure system while awaiting
ATIRCM/CMWS.
Therefore, the committee directs the Army to include the
ALE-47 programmable countermeasure dispensers as part of the
ICH program. The committee supports the ICH program; however,
the committee also notes that many CH-47D models require
additional product improvement to address aging and part
obsolescence issues that threaten near-term flight worthiness.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to assess the
need to establish a funded Chinook product improvement program
and report the results of the assessment including levels of
funding required to the congressional defense committees with
the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Comanche
The budget request contained $614.0 million in PE 64223A
for Comanche.
The committee notes that the Comanche remains the Army's
highest aviation modernization priority, and that the Secretary
of the Army has requested an additional $48.2 million over last
year's forecast in order to accelerate Comanche development.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has recently
reviewed the Comanche program and determined that the program
has successfully achieved all program exit criteria required
before entry into engineering and manufacturingdevelopment
(EMD). The committee is aware, however, that final approval for EMD is
pending while the Army assesses out-year acquisition funding for
Comanche.
The committee supports Comanche and strongly endorses the
commitment made by the Army to accelerate this program. While
total out-year procurement for major programs is an important
issue, the committee believes the Army has made every effort to
accelerate this program within the inadequate modernization
funding allowed by the Department of Defense, and strongly
recommends that the Secretary of Defense grant immediate
approval for Comanche's entry into EMD. This program represents
the only viable solution to meet the requirement for a
stealthy, rapidly deployable, and highly capable armed
reconnaissance aircraft to support the Army's recently approved
aviation modernization plan. The committee believes the
requirement and the urgency for the Comanche has been more than
adequately justified and entry into the EMD phase of the
program should not be delayed pending discussions of the total
planned procurement or annual rate.
The committee recommends the budget request, and supports
earliest possible entry into EMD.
Combat identification dismounted soldier (CIDDS)
The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 64817A for
CIDDS.
The committee is aware that CIDDS will allow an individual
soldier to identify quickly friendly forces and thus reduce the
incidence of fratricide.
The committee continues to support strongly all efforts to
reduce fratricide and, therefore, to enhance the capability of
the dismounted soldier to positively identify a target as
friend or foe, recommends $10.4 million in PE 64817A, an
increase of $5.0 million.
Combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser
The budget request contained $20.5 million in PE 62709A for
night vision technology, but included no funds for the
combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser.
The committee notes that the combustion-driven eye-safe
self-powered laser offers the potential to field a three-
dimensional identification friend or foe system capable of
identifying aircraft and vehicle threat systems in real-time.
The committee recommends $25.5 million in PE 62709A, an
increase of $5.0 million for the combustion-driven eye-safe
self-powered laser.
Common ground station
The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 64770A for
continued development of the Army's Joint Surveillance and
Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) Common Ground Station,
including $2.0 million to develop the Army's Distributed Common
Ground Station (DCGS-A). The budget request also contained $5.9
million for development of a wide-band data link to provide
connectivity to the Joint STARS next generation capability.
The committee notes that the DCGS-A effort duplicates that
being conducted within the Army's Tactical Exploitation of
National Capabilities program. Further, the committee notes
that the Air Force has not determined the next generation Joint
STARS data link and will not do so until at least fiscal year
2002. Therefore, the committee believes it premature for the
Army to begin design or development work for such
communications connectivity.
For these reasons, the committee recommends a decrease of
$7.9 million in this PE 64770A to the DCGS-A program.
Communications and networking technologies
The budget request contained $49.3 million in PE 64805A for
communications, command and control engineering and
manufacturing development.
The committee notes that communications and networking
technologies are critical to command and control, precision
strike, intelligence dissemination, logistics and day-to-day
business operations throughout the joint commands, military
services and supporting defense agencies. The committee
recognizes that the most advanced technological developments in
these areas are emerging from commercial industry and are
driven by the rapid evolution of the commercial markets. The
committee believes that the Department must capitalize on the
rapid progress being made in the commercial sector and
identify, assess, adapt and integrate state-of-the-art
commercial communications and networking technologies to
achieve the goal of Information Superiority established by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Joint Vision 2010. The
committee also believes that there are significant gains to be
made by leveraging information technology developments from the
commercial sector for the benefit of government users, through
cooperative research and development of technologies that
promise significant gains in both civil and military
capabilities, and through training government personnel in
these rapidly evolving technologies.
Therefore, the committee recommends $62.3 million in PE
64805A, an increase of $13.0 million to accelerate on-going
programs for the development and application of commercial
information technologies for defense purposes and to foster
cooperative and complementary information technology research
and development programs. The committee recommends that the
Secretary of the Army work with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Command, Control, Communications, Computers and
Intelligence) to insure the applicability of the increased
program to the overall Defense communications architecture.
Defense manufacturing technology
The budget request contained a total of $149.1 million for
the manufacturing technology (ManTech) program, including $29.3
million in PE 78045A, $59.6 million in PE 78011N, $53.1 million
in PE 78011F, and $7.1 million in PE 78011S.
The committee notes the progress by the Joint Defense
Manufacturing Technology Panel (JDMTP) in developing an
overarching strategy for the ManTech program that focuses on
defense-essential requirements, involves prospective users of
the technology, ensures prioritization of projects, and plans
for transition of ManTech projects to the ultimate user of the
technology. The committee also notes the progress toward
achieving congressional guidelines on program funding levels,
particularly in the Army. The total budget request for
Department of Defense ManTech represents an increase of $16.0
million above the previous year, and the five-year ManTech plan
projects an 11 percent increase through fiscal year 2005, with
the Army program increasing $71.2 million and stable budget
projections for the Navy, Air Force, and Defense Logistics
Agency. The positive funding trend will permit the
establishment of new ManTech initiatives in critical defense
technologies.
The committee notes the increasing use of thick composite
structures in rotary wing aircraft and other applications by
all the military departments and encourages increased emphasis
on the development of advanced manufacturing technologies for
such composite structures.
The committee supports a continuing program in munitions
manufacturing technology and expects that munitions
manufacturing technology projects will compete for funding on
an equal basis with other manufacturing technologies.
The committee also notes that the Army, Navy, and Air Force
are developing methods to accelerate insertion of emerging
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology into tactical
systems to meet precision navigation and guidance requirements.
The objective of the initiative is to develop and demonstrate
low cost manufacturing processes for emerging MEMS technologies
that will enable the production of affordable MEMS-based
inertial sensors, accelerometers and gyroscopes for tactical
weapons. The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to
establish a Tri-Service initiative for the development of
affordable MEMS manufacturing technology, and recommends that
the funding for the program be provided in the Army's ManTech
program.
The committee recommends $39.3 million in PE 78045A for the
Army's manufacturing technology program, an increase of $ 10.0
million. The committee recommends $69.6 million in PE 78011N,
an increase of $10.0 million for the Navy's ManTech program. As
noted elsewhere in this report, the committee has recommended
an increase of $4.5 million in PE 78011F for the development of
manufacturing technology for specialty aerospace metals.
Emergency preparedness training
The budget request contained no funds for emergency
preparedness training research and development.
The committee notes the progress in development of advanced
distributed learning programs for chemical and biological
preparedness and consequence management response training for
the Army's designated Civil Support Teams and other elements of
the Reserve Components.
The committee recommends a $3.0 million in PE 23610A to
continue the development for selected Reserve Component forces
of training programs for response to and management of the
consequences of potential terrorism involving weapons of mass
destruction.
Future combat system
The budget request contained $148.1 million in PE 63005A
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology,
including funding for efforts supporting the future combat
system (FCS).
The committee is aware that the Army has begun the process,
through the FCS initiative, to transform the Army into a more
strategically responsive force that is dominant at every point
across the full spectrum of operations. The committee notes
that the cornerstone of this aggressive transformation effort
would begin in fiscal year 2001 with the partnership between
the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) to incorporate the most promising, new, reaching
technologies into a family of future combat systems.
The committee notes that, while DARPA has ongoing work in
many technology areas, these efforts have not been focused on
solving Army identified problems or advancing technologies
applicable to the future combat system. The committee believes
that DARPA should dedicate more funding to the Army FCS program
and other high priority requirements identified by the
services.
The committee strongly supports the future combat system
development and notes that there is an urgent requirement to
provide additional funding at the program onset to allow a more
inclusive and robust concept definition phase that will enable
as many participants as possible to explore innovative
solutions for the future combat system. The committee is also
aware that additional efforts focused on technology development
in the areas such as robotics, precision weapons, active
protection and signature control are needed.
Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $46.0
million in PE 63005A for the future combat system.
The committee notes that the joint United States-United
Kingdom Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) program is
developing leap-ahead technology for future ground systems.
Both nations are contributing funding and technology to a
program regarded as an excellent example of cooperation between
allies and the Army has indicated that it needs the technology
from FSCS to support development of the Future Combat System.
The committee is disturbed by the Army's elimination of
funding for the FSCS engineering manufacturing development
phase. The committee believes that the FSCS is an essential
collaborative program that should continue in order to develop
and demonstrate key technologies on which to build the family
of future combat vehicles. The committee believes that industry
should be encouraged to continue its significant private
venture funding and that will only occur if the FSCS consortia
can identify a firm connection between FSCS and FCS. The
committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to report
to the congressional defense committees on how the Army will
sustain the joint FSCS program to develop and demonstrate key
technologies applicable to the future family of combat systems,
no later than December 31, 2000.
Future rotorcraft technologies
The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 62211A for
aviation advanced technology, but included no funds to support
the initiative to focus technology for the future generation of
rotorcraft.
The committee notes that despite a clear need for modern,
efficient, capable rotorcraft, no focused program exists to
develop the enabling technologies for more efficient,
affordable rotorcraft in the future.
The committee recommends $33.1 million in PE 62211A, an
increase of $2.0 million for future rotorcraft technologies and
directs the Secretary of the Army to establish a focused
program to develop technologies critical for the future
rotorcraft.
Guardrail common sensor
The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for
aircraft modifications and product improvement programs,
including $11.3 million for continued development and
modification of the Army's Guardrail Common Sensor aircraft and
ground stations.
The committee notes that the Guardrail System 2 was
recently delivered to the Army after nearly ten years of
modification. Unfortunately, this system was returned without
upgrades to permit the dissemination of tactical intelligence
information via the Tactical Information Broadcast Service
(TIBS). TIBS is the baseline for the Integrated Broadcast
Service that is the DOD-mandated worldwide tactical
intelligence dissemination service.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
23744A to install the TIBS capability in the final Guardrail
system.
Helmet mounted infrared sensor development
The budget request contained $33.3 million in PE 63710A for
night vision technology.
The committee is aware that the Army has initiated
development of a prototype helmet mounted infrared sensor
system to support the warfighter that has been demonstrated to
significantly improve situational awareness in all weather/
environmental conditions. This technology has direct
applicability to Department of Defense and civilian
firefighting personnel and increases safety and effectiveness
for firefighting in smoke filled environments as well as for
search and rescue.
The committee recommends $37.1 million in PE 63710A, an
increase of $3.8 million for helmet mounted infrared sensor
development.
High-energy laser test facility
The budget request contained $14.5 million in PE 65605A for
the Department of Defense (DOD) high-energy laser system test
facility (HELSTF).
The committee notes the recent release of the
congressionally directed DOD high-energy laser master plan and
identification of a need for increased investment in solid-
state laser technology. The committee is aware that HELSTF has
contributed significantly to the development of high-power
lasers, and will continue to provide unique capabilities for
research, development, test and evaluation of high-power laser
systems.
The committee supports the DOD high-energy laser master
plan and the selection of the Army as lead in solid-state laser
development and recommends $19.5 million in PE 65605A, an
increase of $5.0 million for HELSTF.
Hypersonic wind tunnels
The budget request contained $47.2 million in PE 62303A for
missile technology, but included no funds for modernization of
the hypersonic wind tunnels at the Aero-optics Evaluation
Center (AOEC)
The committee notes that upgrading the hypersonic wind
tunnel diagnostics and instrumentation will provide enhanced
testing capabilities for key ballistic missile defense
programs, including Navy Area Defense, the Atmospheric
Interceptor Technology project, and the Army's scramjet
technology program.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE
62303A to upgrade hypersonic wind tunnels.
Integrated inertial measurement unit-geo-positioning system
The budget request contained $47.2 million in PE 62303A for
missile technology, including funds for integrated guidance
systems.
The committee notes that the development of a highly
integrated, jam-proof, micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS)
based inertial measuring unit-geo positioning system (IMU-GPS)
is critical to achieving the goal of affordable precision fire
and forget weapons. The most demanding application for this
capability is the 155mm projectile for Army and Navy
applications. The committee is aware that: (1) recent Army
flight tests have demonstrated significant progress and shown
that the goal is achievable and (2) a development plan has been
established to produce a suitable system in approximately three
years. The committee further notes that this program also
offers potentially significant cost growth and technical
problem solutions to Navy fire support programs, and the use of
IMU-GPS systems by both the Army and Navy could result in
billions of dollars of savings for the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million in PE 62303A for continued development of an integrated
IMU-GPS.
Land information warfare activity
The budget request contained $8.1 million in PE 33140A for
the information systems security program.
The committee notes that the Army's land information
warfare activity (LIWA) continues to develop a state-of-the-art
capability for information security and analysis, and that the
Department of Defense (DOD) has recently acknowledged the
importance of this new capability to DOD information assurance
efforts.
The committee supports the Department of Defense efforts to
establish such capability, and supports completion of the LIWA,
including tests of that capability for Army and other entities
to ensure that this potential capability is thoroughly
evaluated.
Therefore, the committee recommends $11.9 million, an
increase of $3.8 million in PE 33140A for continued development
and enhancement of the Army's land information warfare
activity.
Medical errors reduction research
The budget request contained $15.8 million in PE 62716A for
human factors engineering technology, but included no funds for
the medical errors reduction research program (MERRP).
The committee notes that MEERP is an extension of the
previous emergency teams coordination (MEDTEAMS) program to
reduce medical errors in operating rooms, intensive care units
and other hospital activities and will expand that effort from
the emergency department to advanced life support protocols.
The committee recommends $19.5 million in PE 62716A, an
increase of $3.7 million for MERRP.
Mobile tactical high energy laser
The budget request contained $12.6 million in PE 63308A for
Army missile defense systems, but included no funds for mobile
tactical high energy laser development.
The committee is aware that the Army has determined a need
for a mobile directed energy air defense system. The committee
understands that one alternate being explored is the evolution
of the stationary tactical high energy laser (THEL) being
developed for Israel. A mobile THEL for the U.S. Army would
require further development of key elements such as solid-state
laser development, compact power sources, and a lightweight
acquisition, tracking and beam direction system.
The committee recommends $17.6 million in PE 63308A, an
increase of $5.0 million for mobile tactical high energy laser
development.
National automotive center-university innovative research
The budget request contained $148.1 million in PE 63005A
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology.
The committee is aware that the national automotive center
(NAC) has supported efforts by various universities to perform
research in a number of innovative technologies to solve
current ground vehicle problems and pioneer a new generation of
lighter, more efficient ground vehicles. Areas of innovation
include propulsion and power sources, ultra lightweight
structures and advanced materials, supported by innovative
modeling and simulation.
The committee supports efforts of the NAC to take advantage
of university expertise and recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 63005A for NAC-university innovative research.
Passive millimeter wave camera
The budget request contained $20.7 million in PE 62120A for
sensors and electronic survivability, but included no funds for
the passive millimeter wave camera.
The committee is aware that passive millimeter wave camera
technology offers a weather-penetrating alternative to shorter
wavelength infrared thermal imaging cameras.
The committee recommends $24.7 million in PE 62120A, an
increase of $4.0 million for passive millimeter wave camera
development.
Real-time heart rate variability
The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 62787A for
medical technology, but included no funds for real-time heart
rate variability.
The committee notes that heart rate variability technology
offers the potential for enhancing assessment of disease and
trauma. This technology provides the capability for emergency
response personnel in trauma environments to detect injury
severity, physiological stress and potential for survival.
The committee supports development of real-time heart rate
variability technology to enhance trauma victim survivability,
and recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62787A for
real-time heart rate variability technology.
Semi-automated imagery processor
The budget request contained $57.4 million in PE 64766A for
Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities, including
development of the semi-automated imagery processor (SAIP).
The SAIP will provide the Department's limited number of
imagery analysts with an automated target recognition
assistance capability, which will greatly improve their
productivity. Accordingly, the committee recommends $60.4
million in PE 64766A, an increase of $3.0 million, for
continued development and fielding of the SAIP.
Starstreak
The budget request contained $28.8 million in PE 63003A for
aviation advanced technology, but included no funds to complete
flight test of the Starstreak missile.
The committee continues to support the requirement for
Starstreak testing mandated by in the Defense Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262) that required an Apache Longbow
side-by-side test between the Starstreak missile and the
Stinger missile. The committee notes the Army has announced its
intention to begin the tests and that the Ministry of Defense
of the United Kingdom is providing the Starstreak missiles for
testing.
The committee recommends $28.8 million in PE 63003A, the
budget request, and recommends initiation of the planned side-
by-side testing.
Surveillance control data link (SCDL)
The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 64770A for
improvements to the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar
System (Joint STARS) ground stations, but no funds were
included for the Joint STARS SCDL System Improvement Program
(SIP).
The committee notes the proven success of the Joint STARS
system in both Operations Desert Storm and Joint Endeavor. A
key feature of Joint STARS is the secure, encrypted, anti-jam
SCDL. The SCDL links the Air Force's E-8 Joint STARS aircraft
to the Army's Joint STARS common ground stations (CGS),
enabling real-time data transfer of radar imagery intelligence
data and command and control information between the aircraft
and ground stations.
The committee has provided increases for phases one and two
of the three-phrase SIP in prior years. These phases eliminated
CGS common data terminal (CDT) obsolete parts and updated older
circuit boards with state-of-the-art, software-based array
boards, resulting in an increased data transfer rate while
reducing component cost, size, weight, and power requirements.
The committee understands that the Army requires funds to
complete phase three of the SCDL SIP, which would further
improve interoperability through performance testing of the
CDT.
Based on the increased reliability and improved performance
of earlier SIP upgrades, the committee recommends an increase
of $4.0 million in PE 64770A to complete the SCDL SIP phase
three engineering effort.
Thermal fluid based combat feeding system
The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 63747A for
soldier support and survivability, and included $3.4 million
for food and food systems.
The committee notes that a modern central heat unit co-
generation kitchen has been developed to replace the existing
field kitchen. The committee is aware that this kitchen uses
diesel type fuel rather than the more flammable gasoline that
has been the primary source of the longstanding fire hazards in
existing field kitchens.
The committee supports rapid introduction of this modern,
safer kitchen, and recommends $15.1 million in PE 63747A, an
increase of $1.5 million for fabrication and field testing of
the thermal fluid based combat feeding system.
Trajectory correctable munitions
The budget request contained $29.7 million in PE 63004A for
weapons and munitions advanced technology.
The committee notes that the United States and Sweden have
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to demonstrate a
155mm trajectory correctable munition (TCM), which employs a
new technology to achieve precision indirect fire support. The
committee also notes that development of this munition is on
schedule and recent firing tests have successfully demonstrated
achievement of key milestones.
The committee recommends $37.2 million in PE 63004A, an
increase of $7.5 million, and urges the Department of Defense
to complete testing of the TCM round.
Volumetrically controlled manufacturing technology
The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 62787A for
medical technology applied research.
The committee recalls that the Defense Appropriations Act,
1997 (Public Law 105-56) provided $2.5 million in PE 62787A for
the development of a prototype artificial hip using
multidimensional, volumetrically controlled manufacturing of
synthetic materials. The appropriation supported the first
phase of a two-year, two-phase project to develop an optimized
hip stem for orthopedic implants that would address the
structural failure of implants in current use.
In the statement of managers which accompanied the
conference report on S. 1059 (H. Rept. 106-301), the conferees
stated that they were encouraged by the progress made in the
program at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command
and the establishment of a mathematical foundation for
advancing synthetic material development from two-dimensional
processes to real-time, three-dimensional manufacturing. The
process has the potential to eliminate the current mode of
failure of conventional composite materials, namely
delamination and polymer-fiber interface breakdown, and has
potential applications in aerospace and other manufacturing.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62787A to continue the program for development of multi-
dimensional volumetrically controlled manufacturing technology
at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command.
Navy RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $8,476.7 million for Navy
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $8,834.5
million, an increase of $357.8 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Navy
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle
The budget request contained $138.0 million in PE 63611M
for the Marine Corps Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles
(AAAV).
The AAAV is one of the highest priority Marine Corps
modernization programs and is essential to the Marine Corps'
ability to implement its operational maneuver from the sea
doctrine.
The committee believes that an additional engineering
manufacturing development AAAV test vehicle would significantly
enhance reliability testing, software maturation and other
efforts designed to reduce life-cycle costs. Therefore, the
committee recommends $165.5 million, an increase of $27.5
million in PE 63611M for this purpose.
Advanced anti-radiation guided missile
The budget request contained $21.4 million in PE25601N for
operational systems development of improvements to the High-
Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) system, including $9.0
million to continue the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile
(AARGM) project.
The AARGM project is a Phase III Small Business Innovative
Research (SBIR) program to develop and demonstrate a dual-mode
guidance section on a HARM airframe. Program objectives are to
demonstrate an effective, affordable, and lethal suppression of
enemy air defense (SEAD) capability against mobile,
relocatable, or fixed air defense threats in the presence of
potential air defense radar emitter shutdown or other anti-
radiation missile countermeasures.
The AARGM technology demonstration program is an outgrowth
of a Phase I and Phase II competitive SBIR program, which
successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a dual-mode seeker
to address anti-radiation missile countermeasures. The dual-
mode technology under development in the AARGM program has
demonstrated high potential to solve the problem of target
radar ``shut-down'' not only for HARM, the primary SEAD weapon,
but also for application in other missile airframes. The
committee notes the progress made in the program and the
delivery of advanced ARRGM seeker hardware for development test
and evaluation at the Naval Air Weapons Center, China Lake,
California. The committee also notes the application of AARGM
technology being considered in the Quick Bolt advanced concept
technology demonstration.
The committee recommends a $26.4 million in PE 25601N, an
increase of $5.0 million to continue risk reduction, test, and
other field activities to prepare for a potential Milestone II
decision to enter engineering and manufacturing development.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to
the congressional defense committees on the results of the
developmental testing of the ARRGM seeker and the Navy's plans
for further development of the AARGM with the submission of the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Advanced deployable system
The budget request contained $20.7 million in PE 64784N for
the advanced deployable system (ADS). The ADS is a surveillance
system for use in littoral waters and restricted waterways that
can be rapidly deployed in time of crisis to provide a
submarine detection and tracking capability to U.S. Naval
forces.
The committee notes the ADS program is transitioning to the
engineering and manufacturing development phase and has
consistently met or exceeded schedule and cost milestones. The
committee supports leveraging the early success of the ADS
program by accelerating the development of enhanced
capabilities for the system.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $30.7 million in PE
64784N, an increase of $10.0 million, for the ADS to accelerate
the development of advanced, long-life sensors for trip-wire
arrays, increased mine detection capabilities, and enhanced
automation.
Advanced technology demonstrations and fleet battle experiments
The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for
the Navy's advanced technology transition program to
demonstrate technologies that could significantly improve the
warfighting capabilities of the fleet and joint forces and
provide the opportunity to identify and move emerging
technologies quickly and efficiently from the laboratory to the
fleet.
The committee notes the role of the Navy Warfare
Development Command in developing Navy operational concepts and
doctrine, identifying required operational capabilities,
focusing research and development issues, maturing innovative
concepts in naval, joint, and coalition warfare for evaluation
in fleet battle experiments, and designing, planning, and
evaluating the experiments. The committee is aware that fleet
battle experiments have provided a test bed for validation of
Navy doctrine and operational concepts, assessment of
innovative technologies and concepts, and identification of
some of the operational, tactical, and technical challenges
that will be faced by the fleet in the future.
The committee also notes the role that the Navy's science
and technology program performs by focusing on the long-term
objective of enabling future naval capabilities, science and
technology developments that are critical to ensuring naval
superiority, and the demonstration of affordable technology for
transition to the fleet. The committee encourages the Office of
Naval Research, the Navy Secretariat, and the Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations to facilitate this strategy by
ensuring a close working relationship between the Office of
Naval Research, the Navy Warfare Development Command, and the
numbered fleets.
Elsewhere in this report the committee notes the Navy's
progress in concept evaluation of a littoral warfare fast
patrol craft and the significant advances in logistics support,
surveillance, communications and fire support that such a craft
could provide for naval forces in littoral environments, and
recommends increased funding for prototype craft that would
permit demonstration of the operational concept in fleet battle
experiments and other exercises.
The committee notes recommendations from the Defense
Science Board for improvements in tactical mobility and
intratheater lift and recommendations for demonstration of high
speed, fast shuttle sealift and advanced amphibious
capabilities for movement of forces and logistical support
within the theater and of other capabilities in future fleet
battle experiments. The committee encourages the Navy to
support such activities from available funds.
Advanced waterjet propulsor
The budget request contained $244.4 million for in PE
63513N for shipboard systems component development, but
included no funds for advanced water jet technology.
The committee report on H. R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162) noted
proposals for a quarter-scale at-sea demonstration and
cavitation tunnel testing of an advanced waterjet propulsor
(AWJ-21) to validate critical performance criteria and
potential application of the propulsor to the DD-21 land attack
destroyer or other naval ships. The report urged the Secretary
of the Navy to assess the requirement for further development,
demonstration, and evaluation of advanced waterjet propulsor
technology and to provide recommendations regarding the
demonstration, a program execution plan, and Navy funding for
the program.
On December 1, 1999, the Secretary reported that the Navy's
AWJ-21 technology demonstration plan had developed hydrodynamic
performance prediction and critical performance measurement
capabilities for advanced waterjet concepts, and that the
knowledge and capability generated will be provided to both DD-
21 industry teams determining the suitability of the AWJ-21 for
use on DD-21. The report stated that a separate Navy-funded
advanced waterjet development and large-scale demonstration
program would be inappropriate because it could be viewed as
Government endorsement of a specific propulsor solution and
subverting the DD-21 acquisition strategy (in which the
industry team is given full responsibility for recommending a
total ship design for the DD-21). The report stated further
that development of the AWJ-21 system by the DD-21 program is
dependent upon a decision by the winning DD-21 industry team to
include the AWJ-21 propulsion concept in their design. The
report concluded that there is currently no Navy operational
requirement that requires the use of an advanced waterjet
propulsor and recommended no further development of advanced
waterjet technology at this time.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Navy to ensure
that advanced water jet technology is given all appropriate
consideration.
Aircraft survivability study
The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for
aircraft survivability demonstration and validation.
The committee is aware that the population of aircrew and
passengers permitted on board military aircraft includes both
female and male personnel, and is concerned about the ability
of crash protective seating systems to provide adequate
protection to occupants of lighter weight and smaller stature.
The committee recommends an increase of $500,000 in PE
63216N to determine and assess the potential for increased
injury risk to female operators and passengers in the Navy's
helicopter fleet.
Aviation depot maintenance technology
The budget request contained $62.2 million in PE 63721N for
environmental protection.
The committee notes that new environmentally friendly
repair processes are being developed that offer significant
productivity improvements and potential cost savings. To this
end, Congress provided increased funding in fiscal years 1999
and 2000 for the development and demonstration of aviation
depot maintenance technologies that will significantly reduce
maintenance and repair costs and reduce or eliminate hazardous
waste and pollution products.
The committees recommends $63.9 million in PE 63721N, an
increase of $1.75 million to continue the program for
demonstration of advanced maintenance technologies for
application of tungsten carbide coatings to aircraft landing
gear and hydraulic components.
Aviation modernization plan
The committee notes recent reports that the Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations is considering a major revision of
naval aviation plans which would remove aircraft from
inventory, cancel future aircraft systems concepts, and
reconfigure the carrier air wing in order to develop an
affordable modernization plan for naval aviation. The reports
indicate that the recommendations contained in the ``Common
Vision for Naval Aviation'' would be implemented beginning with
the Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2002. The committee
understands that the following alternatives are being
considered:
(1) Replacement of the EA-6B Prowler electronic
warfare aircraft by 2010 with an electronic warfare
aircraft follow-on;
(2) Retirement of the F-14 Tomcat strike-fighter
aircraft by 2008;
(3) Service life extension of the C-2 Grayhound
Tracker carrier onboard delivery aircraft;
(4) Retirement of the S-3B Viking antisubmarine
warfare aircraft by 2008 and its mission replacement by
a combination of P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft
and SH-60R Seahawk multi-mission helicopter;
(5) Replacement of the S-3B Viking in its tanker role
by F/A-18E/F fighter aircraft with a aircraft refueling
capability;
(6) Service life extension of the P-3C Orion maritime
patrol aircraft;
(7) Service life extension of the EP-3E Aries
electronic surveillance aircraft;
(8) Cancellation of the concept of a common support
aircraft that would combine the mission of the E-2C
Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft with the
missions of the S-3 Viking and C-2 Greyhound aircraft;
(9) Delay introduction of a multi-mission maritime
aircraft to replace the P-3C Orion and EP-3E Aries to
no later than 2015; and
(10) Reduction of the number of strike aircraft in a
carrier air wing from 56 to 50.
The committee commends the Navy for its initiative in
developing a long-term plan for naval aviation that attempts to
meet the challenges of affordability and effectiveness in a
budget constrained environment. The committee recognizes the
issues of current and future operational requirements, current
force capabilities, personnel, training, research and
development, procurement, logistics, and estimated funding
available that must be considered in developing such a plan.
The committee notes that the Navy's plan is not complete and
was not available during the committee's review of the budget
request.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to provide
information on the Navy's revised aviation modernization plan
to the congressional defense committees at the earliest
opportunity to ensure adequate opportunity for oversight review
of this important initiative prior to receipt of the budget
request for fiscal year 2002.
Battle force tactical trainer (BFTT)
The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems development, including $4.1
million for development of the surface tactical team trainer
(Battle Force Tactical Training program).
The committee notes that the BFTT system provides the Navy
with an effective embedded training capability on many of the
Navy's surface ships, permitting realistic unit level team
training and coordinated training among ships in port, and
providing commanders the ability to conduct coordinated
realistic, high stress, combat system training when afloat. The
Navy is converting BFTT to a Windows NTTM personal
computer (PC)-based environment that will extend the BFTT
simulation to shore-based facilities at the training commands
to provide more realistic combat system team and individual
training at these facilities, as well as providing the
opportunity for expansion and upgrade of the capabilities of
the BFTT system.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
24571N to accelerate the conversion and upgrade of the BFTT
system to a Windows NTTM/PC-based environment.
Beartrap
The budget request contained $19.7 million in PE 63254N for
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development, including
$5.3 million for Project Beartrap.
The budget request for Beartrap supports hardware and
software development for the rapid prototyping of advanced
capability acoustic and non-acoustic ASW sensors, as well as
data collection and analysis for threat assessment and
environmental characterization. The committee notes the
progress being made in the evaluation and development of the
phenomena of nonlinear dynamics and stochastic resonance (NDSR)
for acoustic, magnetic, and other ASW sensor and signal
processing applications. The committee also notes the Navy's
progress in developing a comprehensive and focused strategy for
acoustic, and non-acoustic environmental data collection,
analysis and dissemination, and plans for continued
implementation of the strategy to meet the Navy'sneeds in
environmental data bases, modeling for new systems research and
development, and environmental inputs to tactical decision aids.
The committee recommends $24.7 million in PE 63254N, an
increase of $5.0 million for Project Beartrap to continue the
development, demonstration, and evaluation of NDSR technology
for ASW applications and to continue the Beartrap environmental
characterization program.
C-2 eight-blade composite propeller system
The budget request contained $51.0 million in PE 25633N for
improvements in operational Navy aviation and aviation support
systems.
The committee notes that the Navy is seeking solutions to
operational limitations encountered with the propeller system
used on E-2C and C-2A aircraft. The current propeller system
incorporates technology developed in the 1950s and the 1960s,
is difficult and expensive to maintain, and is no longer in
production. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-
132) directed the initiation of development and demonstration
of an eight-blade composite propeller for E-2C and C-2A
aircraft. The Navy subsequently began a program for design,
development, test, and production of the propeller system. The
committee notes that the program includes flight and ground
test of the new propeller system for the E-2 aircraft, but
includes only ground tests for the new propeller on the C-2
aircraft.
The committee recommends $57.0 million in PE 25633N, an
increase of $6.0 million to flight test the new propeller
system on the C-2 aircraft sequentially with the E-2 flight
test program.
Common command and decision system
The budget request contained $119.3 million in PE 63658N
for continued development of the Navy's cooperative engagement
capability (CEC), and $33.0 million in PE 63582N for combat
systems integration demonstration and validation, including
$8.7 million for common command and decision systems
development.
The committee notes the Navy's progress in resolving
interoperability issues between CEC and Navy ship self-defense
(SSD) combat systems and preparations for the CEC operational
evaluation in May 2001. The committee anticipates that
successful completion of the evaluation will provide the basis
for widespread deployment of CEC to the fleet and for joint
purposes as well.
The committee also notes that the Navy initiated
engineering studies in fiscal year 1999 for a common command
and decision (CC&D) system that would be a preplanned product
improvement (P3I) to the Aegis weapons systems and the Mark 2
ship self defense system and would replace the command and
decision capability presently in these systems with a common
computer architecture. Such an architecture would reduce future
combat systems life-cycle costs, enable the fielding of new or
modified combat systems capabilities more quickly and at a
lower cost, enhance system interoperability, and eliminate the
redundant, conflicting processing that is inherent in these
systems. The Navy has stated that the CC&D is a critical step
toward resolving long-term interoperability problems. Congress
provided an increase of $30.0 million for the program in fiscal
year 2000. The Navy's program plan includes $91.2 million in
addition to this year's request through fiscal year 2005. The
Navy has projected a notional program schedule that would begin
engineering and manufacturing development in March 2002 and
achieve initial operational capability for the CC&D system in
September 2008. The committee notes that the Chief of Naval
Operations has identified a $43 million unfunded requirement to
accelerate the ability to begin engineering and manufacturing
development by one year.
The committee supports the CC&D system program objectives
that have been identified by the Navy. The committee notes that
the CC&D development program is at an early stage, the program
schedule is notional, and operational requirements are being
refined. The committee also notes Navy plans to evaluate a
proposed new approach to cooperative engagement capability data
processing and transmission (the Tactical Component Network
(TCN)), which could conserve CEC communications bandwidth and
provide for a wider, more efficient CEC network.
The committee encourages the Navy to seek technology
insertion opportunities that will improve the interoperability
of Navy combat systems and CEC's capabilities for naval and
joint forces and to provide the required funding as a part of
the Navy's core budget program. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense
committees on the Navy's program plan and funding for the CC&D
P3I program and for insertion of advanced technology in the
CEC/SSD integrated combat system with the submission of the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The committee recommends $119.3 million in PE 63658N for
continued development of the Navy's CEC and $33.0 million in PE
63582N to continue combat systems integration demonstration and
validation.
Common towed array
The budget request contained $113.3 million in PE 63561N
for advanced submarine systems development, including $4.5
million for the development of advanced towed array technology
for submarines and surface ships.
The committee notes the Navy's operational requirement for
improvements in critical undersea warfare combat systems
technologies needed in the littoral regions of the world. The
committee also notes that the Navy's advanced towed array
technology program is making considerable progress in
developing multiple-line and fiber optic affordable towed array
technology that could result in high gain, volumetric towed
arrays with significantly improved performance for submarine
and surface ship sonar systems
The committee recommends $123.5 million in PE 63561N, an
increase of $10.2 million to accelerate the development and
demonstration of advanced towed array systems for surface ship
and submarine anti-submarine warfare tactical and strategic
surveillance.
Composite advanced sail development
The budget request contained $113.3 million in PE 63561N
for advanced submarine systems development, including $5.7
million for hydrodynamics/hydroacoustics and completion of the
advanced submarine sail development project.
The committee notes that the Navy's technology insertion
plan for the Virginia class submarine includes installation of
an advanced sail made of steel on the seventh Virginia class
ship. The committee also notes the development of a quarter-
scale advanced submarine sail made of composite materials for
the Navy's large scale vehicle and the conduct of submersion
tests at the Navy's Idaho test range in which the composite
sail exceeded the Navy's performance expectations.
The committee supports the advanced submarine technology
insertion program for the Virginia class submarine and directs
the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional
defense committees on the Navy's plan for further development
of a composite advanced sail for the submarine with the
submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
CVNX aircraft carrier design product modeling
The budget request contained $149.0 million in PE 63512N
for carrier systems development.
The committee notes that all new classes of Navy ships,
such as the Virginia-class submarine, the DD-22 land attack
destroyer, and the LPD-17 amphibious transport dock, are being
designed using electronic three dimensional product models to
take advantage of the inherent design, production and life
cycle maintenance cost savings offered by these modern design
tools.
The committee also notes that design data for the Nimitz-
class nuclear aircraft carriers, upon which design work began
in the 1950's, remains largely in non-electronic form.
Conversion of aircraft carrier design data into an electronic
format was difficult to justify when Navy plans previously
called for a complete change in designs following completion of
CVN-77.
The committee notes, however, that the Navy has adopted an
evolutionary design approach for future carriers, beginning
with the CVN-77 as a transition ship and retains the Nimitz-
class hull form largely unchanged through at least CVNX-2.
Therefore, the committee believes that it now may be cost-
effective to convert Nimitz-class design data and to develop
future nuclear aircraft design data utilizing electronic,
three-dimensional product models to reap the design,
production, and life cycle maintenance cost savings offered by
this approach. The committee is aware that development of a
nuclear aircraft carrier design product model may take several
years and could be undertaken as part of the planned design
efforts for CVN-77, CVNX-1, and CVNX-2.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct
an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of developing an
aircraft carrier design product model for the CVNX and report
the results of the assessment, together with plans and funding
requirements for development of such a model to the
congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The committee recommends $149.0 million in PE 63512N,
including $5.0 million to begin development of an aircraft
carrier design product model for the CVNX.
Distributed engineering plant
The committee supports continued integration of high
performance computers for Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)'s
multi-functional test control center and distributed
engineering plant (DEP) operations with the Joint Forces
Command's Joint Interoperability Training Center and other
military organizations and activities, academia, and industry
in the Hampton Roads region. The committee notes that
cooperation and sharing of computer resources among joint
forces and the military services, academia, and industry in the
region could result in lower costs and improved capabilities
for analysis, design, modeling and simulation, which would be
reflected in major combat systems developments, such as the
cooperative engagement capability and the CVN-77 and CVN-X
aircraft carriers.
The committee is aware of the multi-functional test control
center at NAVSEA Dam Neck and its interface with major Atlantic
test and training ranges used for joint operations and
training. The committee also notes that the Hampton Roads
network access point at NAVSEA Dam Neck provides
transcontinental connectivity to other development, test and
evaluation, acquisition, and training activities and an
improved analytical and information exchange capability.
The committee encourages the Navy to continue to capitalize
on government-sponsored high performance computing and high
speed network programs, such as the National Science
Foundation's Partnership for Advanced Computing Infrastructure,
the East Coast Communication's Network, and the Department of
Defense high performance computing modernization program, in
developing improved capabilities for analysis, design, modeling
and simulation, combat systems integration, training, test and
evaluation.
Distributed marine environment forecast system
The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for
applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technology,
including $12.0 million for ocean and atmospheric prediction.
The committee notes the long established need for a
distributed forecast system in the marine environment, which
combines ocean and atmospheric models with common database
access and common tools to provide the capability for
prediction of local and future weather and sea conditions and
their potential effects on fleet and other operations. The
committee also notes the potential for building upon
oceanographic and atmospheric models and data from the
Department of Defense, National Air and Space Administration,
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and
Environmental Protection Agency to integrate these resources
into a distributed marine environment forecast system.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62435N to establish an applied research program for development
and demonstration of a distributed marine environment forecast
system.
DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration
The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 63217N for
air systems and weapons advanced technology development, but
included no funds for continuation of the DP-2 thrust vectoring
system proof of concept demonstration.
DP-2 is a proof-of-concept program to demonstrate the use
of thrust vector control to achieve vertical takeoff and
conventional takeoff capabilities in a one-half scale flight
test vehicle. The technology offers the potential for a low
cost, medium range aircraft of advanced composite construction.
The committee notes the progress being made in the DP-2
program in the design and fabrication of large, precise
composite structures and in the potential for the use of small
models to demonstrate and confirm complex aeronautical guidance
and control laws for the DP-2 system prior to entering the
flight test phase. The committee also notes that technical
issues regarding strength of materials, engineering design, the
development and test of an automated control system, and other
safety of flight issues must be resolved before the program can
proceed to the flight test phase.
The committee recommends $49.2 million in PE 63217N, an
increase of $9.5 million to continue the DP-2 development
program leading to a proof-of-concept demonstration of a one-
half scale flight test vehicle. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide an assessment of the program
progress and plans and funding requirements for completion of
the flight-test demonstration to the congressional defense
committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
Dry chemical fire suppressant
The committee notes that the Navy's initial tests of a
gelled, dry chemical fire suppressant agent in a self-contained
fire extinguishing system, which is reportedly non-toxic and
has a long shelf life, have successfully demonstrated the
effectiveness of the material for fire fighting. The Naval
Research Laboratory report of its test of alternative fire
suppressant technologies, dated July 1999, indicated the
agent's high level of effectiveness and its potential for
performing better than clean agent fire suppressant systems in
current use aboard Navy ships, and encouraged further research
on the agent. The committee encourages the Navy to conduct
comprehensive field tests of the suppressant and, if the tests
are successful, to consider deployment of the fire suppressant
system to the fleet.
E2-C2 rotordome and control surface improvements
The budget request contained $18.7 million in PE 24152N for
E-2 squadron operational systems development.
The committee notes that the rotordome and control surfaces
on the Navy's E2-C2 Hawkeye aircraft have been experiencing
problems due to structural damage from water absorption and
excessive wear and that the Navy's plans to extend the service
life of these aircraft require a new retrofit design to
eliminate costly maintenance and downtime.
The committee recommends $20.7 million in PE 24152N, an
increase of $2.0 million to develop composite retrofit options
to improve the serviceability and performance of the E2-C2
Hawkeye.
Extended range guided munition
The budget request contained $143.0 million in PE 63795N
for land attack technology, including $39.1 million for
development of the extended range guided munition (ERGM).
The committee notes that the Navy's core program for near-
term improvements in naval surface fire support (NSFS) includes
upgrading the existing 5-inch 54-caliber Mk 45 gun on its
cruisers and destroyers to fire a new extended-range guided
munition (ERGM) with nearly five times the range of current 5-
inch projectile. Both the 5-inch 62-caliber Mk 45 Mod 4 gun and
the ERGM projectile were to have achieved initial operational
capability in fiscal year 2001. The first Mk 45 Mod 4 gun was
installed in the USS Winston Church (DDG-81) on schedule in
1999. However, technical challenges and the contractor's
relocation of the ERGM development activity have delayed the
ERGM development program an estimated three years to 2004 and
doubled the program cost.
The committee notes ERGM's key role in the NSFS program and
the need for a long-range (63 nautical mile) guided, gun-fired
projectile to achieve the approved operational requirements for
support of ground forces ashore. The committee also notes that
the global positioning system/inertial measuring unit (GPS/IMU)
guidance and control technology being developed for ERGM will
establish a baseline for future advanced guided projectiles for
the DD-21 land attack destroyer and for other weapons systems.
The committee has closely monitored the ERGM program since
its inception and has supported the baseline development
program and accelerated development and integration of
microelectromechanical system (MEMS)-based GPS/INS into ERGM.
The committee has encouraged close cooperation between the Navy
and Army guided munitions research and development communities
in order to achieve risk reduction in their respective guided
projectile development programs and maximum commonality and
economies of scale in production.
The committee notes the detailed reviews of the ERGM
program by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research,
Development, and Acquisition) and the contractor; program
management changes and risk reduction measures taken; and
program rebaseline and other measures under consideration that
might encourage program competition. The committee believes
that the technical goals of the program are challenging, but
achievable.
The committee recommends $39.1 million in PE 63795N, the
budget request, to continue the ERGM development program. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the
congressional defense committees on the revised program
baseline, risk reduction measures, and measures to foster
competition in the ERGM program no later than November 1, 2000.
F-18
The budget request contained $248.1 million in PE 24136N
for continued development of capabilities for the F/A-18
aircraft.
The committee has supported the Shared Airborne
Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) efforts to provide the F/A-18
aircraft with an enhanced tactical reconnaissance capability
that will also be applicable to other combat aircraft. The
committee notes the recent successful demonstration of the
SHARP risk-mitigation project for the F-14 Tactical Airborne
Reconnaissance Podded System that was employed by the battle
group U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. This demonstration clearly
indicated the force multiplying capability provided by a real-
time imagery system supports continuation of this effort.
The committee is concerned, however, that the funding
requested for SHARP is insufficient to support completion of
sensors for an initial operational capability (IOC) in fiscal
year 2003. The committee notes that this shortfall in funding
results in an increase in cost of tactical reconnaissance
support by extending use of the less capable F-14 Tactical Air
Reconnaissance Pod (TARPS). The committee is also aware that
emerging technology is being developed to replace existing
mechanical focal plane shutters with a solid-state shutter to
further increase SHARP camera performance and reliability.
However, the committee is concerned that the current program is
insufficiently funded to ensure a fiscal year 2003 SHARP fleet
deployment.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0
million in PE 24136N for the development of the SHARP F-18
tactical reconnaissance capability to maintain the SHARP IOC.
Fielded system obsolescence, technology insertion and technology
refreshment
The committee notes the increasing reliance upon
commercial-off-the-shelf in Department of Defense systems and
the rapid obsolescence of technology and exponential increases
in capability in subsequent generations that are common
characteristics of the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
industry. The committee believes that management of COTS in
Defense systems is a major effort that must be recognized,
quantified and separately addressed as an integral part of the
procurement process. To this end, the committee recommends that
all programs within DOD with high COTS content should include a
management plan that addresses the costs associated with
sustaining the military capability of the systems in a COTS
environment. The plan should clearly distinguish the costs
associated with sustaining current performance requirements
through technology refreshment and meeting increased
performance requirements through the technology insertion
process.
The committee believes that institution of such a planning
process in the Department would provide Congress with the
information necessary to evaluate the merits of COTS products
in DOD applications based on a true and accurate representation
of operational requirements and total ownership costs. Based on
ongoing work in technology refreshment and technology insertion
by the Department of the Navy as represented by the Acoustic
Rapid COTS Insertion (A-RCI) program, the committee believes
that a pilot program to address these issues should be
established within the Navy.
The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy
provide a report on the Navy's plan for such a program that
would address the issues of technology refresh and technology
insertion in legacy and developmental programs with the
submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Fleet health technology and occupational lung disease
The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63706N for
medical development, including $4.8 million for the fleet
health technology program.
The Navy's medical development program supports advanced
medical care and health protection from hazardous occupational
and operational exposure to Navy and Marine Corps personnel in
operational theaters. The committee notes that the budget
request would reduce funding for the fleet health technology
program approximately $5.7 million less than the fiscal year
2001 estimate that was provided in the fiscal year 2000
request. The committee is disturbed with this reduction in the
priority given to the medical care and occupational health and
safety of Navy and Marine Corps personnel.
The committee also notes that concerns have been raised
that naval personnel diagnosed with sarcoidosis, may have
suffered from other lung diseases related to exposure to
occupational hazards during their military service. A study by
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) has provided an assessment of the incidence of
sarcoidosis among Navy enlisted personnel and suggests a
relationship of sarcoidosis with assignment aboard aircraft
carriers. The Navy Surgeon General has indicated that
correlation of the results of the NIOSH study with a pathologic
review of tissue samples at the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology taken from naval personnel during the 1960s and
1970s, would be relevant to resolving the concerns regarding
sarcoidosis and other lung diseases. The Navy Surgeon General
also indicated that collaboration with the multi-center study
of sarcoidosis etiology, natural history, and treatment
currently being considered by the National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute, should be considered.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in
coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
Director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, to
establish an occupational lung disease assessment program to
determine if naval personnel with lung disease due to other
causes may have been misdiagnosed with sarcoidosis and if the
incidence of sarcoidosis or other lung disease could be
attributable to service aboard Navy ships. The program should
also consider collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute's sarcoidosis etiology study. The Secretary of
the Navy shall report the plan for the study and any initial
study results to the congressional defense committees no later
than March 21, 2001.
The committee recommends $13.1 million in PE 63706N, an
increase of $3.0 million, including $500,000 for the conduct of
the occupational lung disease assessment discussed above. To
offset the recommended increase, the committee recommends a
reduction of $3.0 million in PE 63513N.
Flight worthy transparent armor system
The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for
aircraft survivability demonstration and validation.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63216N for the development of a flight worthy transparent armor
system for the AH-1Z light attack helicopter and V-22 tilt-
rotor aircraft that could be migrated to other platforms as
well.
High mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS)
The budget request contained no funds for the High Mobility
Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). The HIMARS is an Army-
developed, Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV)-mounted
multiple launch rocket system. The committee understands that
the Marine Corps currently lacks an all-weather, continuously
available, long-range fire support system capable of
prosecuting a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) and Marine
Ground Combat Element's (CGE) deep strike mission and counter
fire battle. The committee also understands that the existing
prototype HIMARS has the potential to fulfill the MEF and CGE
mission requirements. The committee notes that the Commandant
of the Marine Corps has identified a $17.3 million unfunded
requirement for the procurement of two HIMARS systems for
evaluation and a system design study to address integrating the
HIMARS launcher onto the Marine Corps' Medium Tactical Vehicle
Replacement truck in fiscal year 2001.
The committee believes that evaluation of this weapon
system as a deep strike alternative capability for Marine
expeditionary forces is important, and, therefore, recommends
$17.3 million in PE 63635M to procure two HIMARS systems for
this purpose.
High performance sigma-delta waveform generator
The budget request contained $26.0 million in PE 62270N for
applied research in electronic warfare technology.
The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research has
been developing semi-conductor and super-conducting technology
for the implementation of a Sigma-Delta Waveform Generator.
This activity has included development of high speed gallium
arsenide and/or Josephson Junction circuits to implement a
highly linear, flexible, digital waveform generator for next
generation Navy systems. The advanced semi-conductor and super-
conducting circuits being developed will enable higher levels
of performance required to detect small targets in clutter and
to perform multiple radio frequency functions.
The committee recommends an $29.0 million in PE 62270N, an
increase of $3.0 million to continue the program for
development of super-conducting wave form generator technology.
Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communication technology
The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for
applied research in communications, command and control,
intelligence, and surveillance.
The committee notes the progress made in development and
demonstration of the technology for hybrid fiber optic wireless
communications systems, and believes that the application of
this technology to shipboard communications will provide
increased mobility and security while reducing the effects of
frequency interference.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
62232N to continue the development of hybrid fiberoptic/
wireless communication system technology. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to assess the progress in the program and the
potential for incorporation of the technology in the Navy's core
science and technology program and to report the results of that
assessment to the congressional defense committees with the submission
of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Hybrid light detection and ranging (LIDAR)/radar technology
The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for
advanced technology demonstration and transition.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63792N to continue the development and further demonstration of
hybrid LIDAR/radar technology in the Claymore Marine advanced
technology demonstration.
Hyperspectral research
The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for
applied research in communications, command and control,
intelligence, and surveillance technology.
The committee notes that hyperspectral sensor systems
provide the capability to detect and identify targets that are
not discernible with conventional sensors by exploiting the
spectral signature of both the target and the environment. The
Naval Research Laboratory has conducted extensive research into
the use of hyperspectral technology to provide a surveillance
sensor that is capable of finding difficult military targets in
clutter-rich environments. The laboratory has made excellent
progress in developing hyperspectral technology and has
conducted successful testing on board Navy intelligence
collection aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62232N to continue the Navy's development, integration, and
testing of hyperspectral sensors with other sensors.
Insensitive munitions
The budget request contained $28.6 million in PE 63609N for
conventional munitions demonstration and validation, including
$3.2 million for insensitive munitions advanced development;
and $7.5 million in PE 63216N for aviation survivability,
including $1.8 million for aircraft and ordnance safety.
The committee notes that insensitive munitions reduce the
severity of cook-off and bullet/fragment impact reactions, and
minimize the probability for sympathetic detonation (both in
normal storage and in use) without compromising combat
performance, and are recognized as a critical technology
requirement in the design of new weapons systems. The committee
also notes that, despite the Navy's requirements for
insensitive munitions, nearly all Navy munitions require a
wavier to be carried aboard ships. The committee notes that the
Navy is the lead service for the development of insensitive
munition technology and that the budget request would reduce
insensitive munition technology development funding almost $6.0
million below the amount provided in fiscal year 2000 as well
as the average program level of the past several years. In view
of joint requirements and the Navy's requirements for
insensitive munitions, the committee believes that the Navy
needs to assign a high priority to the insensitive munitions
program and directs the Secretary of the Navy to address this
issue in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Integrated aviation life support systems
The budget request contained $17.5 million in PE 64264N for
aircrew systems engineering and manufacturing development,
including $8.9 million for development of aviation life support
systems.
The committee notes progress in development of the two-
part, tri-service modular helmet, the advanced visionics helmet
system for day/night, all-weather sight display, and the
helicopter aircrew integrated life support system. The
committee also notes that the current program, which develops
the helicopter life support system and helmet systems
separately, could result in an overall aviation life support
system that is geared to the lowest performing component. The
committee believes that integrated development of these systems
will result in an aviation life support system that provides
optimal performance, greater tactical advantage, and improved
aircrew safety.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $25.5 million in PE
64264N, an increase of $8.0 million for continued development
and flight evaluation of an integrated aviation life-support
system that includes the tri-service modular flight helmet, the
advanced visionics helmet system, and the helicopter aircrew
integrated life support system.
Integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze
The budget request contained $38.0 million in PE 62111N for
applied research in air and surface launched weapons
technology.
The committee notes the progress that has been made in the
development of semi-conductor bridges as electrical initiators
for explosives and their potential for replacing conventional
hot bridgewire devices with significant reductions in size,
weight, power and cost. The coupling of semiconductor bridge
devices with microelectromechanical systems technology in
initiation and safe/arm components offers the opportunity for
the development of electromechanical fuzes with superior
accuracy and reliability, reduced power consumption and weight,
and lower cost.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
62111N to initiate a proof-of-concept development and
demonstration of an integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze
for potential use in air and surface launched weapons systems.
Intermediate modulus carbon fiber and ultra-high thermal conductivity
graphite fibers
The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials and radio frequency/electro-
optics/infrared electronics technology and $72.8 million in PE
62102F for materials applied research, including $44.1 million
for materials for structures, propulsion, and subsystems.
The committee notes that the joint strike fighter (JSF),
the F/A-18E/F strike fighter, the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the
joint air-to-surface standoff missile, and many other advanced
aviation and weapons systems use composite structures which
have carbon fiber as a major component. The committee is aware
of proposals for the use of intermediate modulus carbon fiber
materials as an alternative to the carbon fiber that could
result in as much as a 50 percent reduction in the cost of raw
materials used in these weapons systems.
The committee also notes initial progress in the evaluation
and qualification of ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite
fiber materials for critical spacecraft requirements related to
countermeasures and spacecraft protection, high energy/thermal
loading, very large antennas, high-efficiency solar collectors,
and other applications.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should place priority on the development of procedures for
qualifying new materials for potential use in military systems
that could result in lower costs while maintaining system
performance requirements. The committee supports continued
validation of design methods, material performance in various
service environments, and the capability of the materials to
manage thermal loads generated by electronics.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62234N for evaluation of new, lower cost, commercially
available carbon fibers for JSF and other Navy aircraft and
missile applications and $2.0 million in PE 62102F to continue
the program for evaluation and qualification of ultra-high
thermal conductivity graphite materials for critical spacecraft
requirements.
Joint forces command operational testbed
The budget request contained $113.1 million in PE 35204N
for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funds
for the Joint Forces Command unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
joint operational testbed.
Congress previously provided funds for two Predator
unmanned aerial vehicles and a tactical control system (TCS)
ground station to support development of TCS and UAV
operational employment procedures. The committee notes that the
joint tactical UAV program office (JPO) was disestablished. The
committee further notes that the Joint Forces Command has
responsibility for oversight of joint operational testing and
evaluation of weapons systems, a function previously conducted
by the UAVJPO for specific UAV systems.
The committee supports the efforts of the Joint Forces
Command and recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 35204N
for the Joint Forces Command UAV testbed. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to transfer the two Predator UAVs and
TCS ground station to the Joint Forces Command for use by the
joint operational UAV testbed.
Joint helmet mounted cueing system
The budget request contained $248.1 million in PE 24136N
for operational systems development for F/A18 naval strike
fighter aircraft, including $3.3 million to continue
development of the joint helmet mounted cueing system, digital
communications systems, and positive identification system.
The committee notes that the joint helmet mounted cueing
system, when combined with state of the art missile systems
currently in development, provides a significant improvement in
air to air combat survivability. The committee is also aware
that this improved capability is essential to the success of
the Navy's F/A-18 E/F strike fighter aircraft currently being
deployed.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
24136N for continued development of the joint helmet mounted
cueing system for the F/A-18C/D fighter.
Joint tactical combat training system
The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems development, including $7.8
million for development of the Joint Tactical Combat Training
Systems (JTCTS).
The JTCTS is a joint Air Force/Navy program for the
development of fixed, transportable, and mobile range
instrumentation for shore-based tactical aircrew training and
for deployable, at-sea naval expeditionary force training. The
statement of managers that accompanied the conference report on
H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-746) directed the Department of Defense
to conduct a technical evaluation to compare the capabilities,
performance, and costs of competing system approaches to JTCTS,
and to identify the best technical solution with the best value
for meeting the Department's operational training requirement.
In November 1999, the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition
and Technology) reported that after completion of the technical
evaluation and a thorough analysis, the JTCTS was determined to
be the system of choice to meet the joint training requirement.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
24571N to accelerate the development and fielding of JTCTS for
fleet and fixed range support of Navy and Air Force tactical
air combat training.
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for
aircraft survivability demonstration and validation.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63216N to continue the application of lightweight
environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA) sealing
technology for use on existing and planned parachutes for Navy
ejection seats.
Littoral support fast patrol craft
The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for
advanced technology transition.
The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research (ONR)
has evaluated initial results of the concept evaluation of a
littoral warfare fast patrol craft and is favorably impressed
with the potential for such a system. The committee continues
to believe that such a craft could provide significant advances
in logistics support, surveillance, communications and fire
support capabilities for naval forces in littoral environments.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $22.0
million in PE 63792N to develop a prototype for demonstrating
the operational concepts of a littoral support fast patrol
craft.
Location of global positioning systems (GPS) jammers
The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE 64270N for
electronic warfare development but included no funds to
continue development and demonstration of a state-of-the-art
precision surveillance and targeting system for location of
global positioning systems jammers (LOCO GPSI).
The committee notes that the Navy has developed a prototype
LOCO GPSI airborne detection system, capable of rapid,
precision location sources for GPS interference. In the
committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162), the committee
recommended an increase of $6.0 million to continue development
and evaluation of the LOCO GPSI system and directed the Navy to
assess its operational requirement.
Consistent with its past action, the committee recommends
$103.3 million in PE 64270N, an increase of $6.0 million, to
complete advanced development for the LOCO GPSI system, provide
two additional sensor systems, and to complete system testing.
Malaria deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) vaccine
The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63706N for
advanced medical technology development.
The committee notes the outstanding achievement by the
military medical research community in collaboration with the
pharmaceutical industry in developing DNA vaccines for complex
multistage pathogens and for multiple pathogens of military
importance. This collaboration has resulted in the promising
development of an effective recombinant protein malaria vaccine
of unprecedented efficacy. Successful completion of the
development will result in a cost-effective means of
controlling malaria, the most important infectious threat to
ground troops and to third-world populations.
Of the funds authorized for PE 63706N, the committee
recommends $1.5 million to continue development of the
recombinant protein malaria vaccine, and recommends that the
Secretary of the Navy accelerate the development of this
technology in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Manned reconnaissance systems
The budget request contained $27.5 million in PE 35207N for
manned reconnaissance systems, including $25.3 million for
development of the shared airborne reconnaissance pod (SHARP).
The committee continues its support for the SHARP program
to increase dramatically real-time tactical reconnaissance
capabilities. The committee is aware of developmental EO
framing processing techniques that will provide for real-time
precision strike targeting and solid-state shutter technology
that will greatly reduce operational costs and improve camera
performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
35207N for long-range optical sensor technology and $3.0
million for development of a solid-state shutter mechanism that
can be retrofitted on currently fielded framing array cameras.
Marine corps dragon warrior UAV
The budget request contained no funds in PE 35204M for
Marine Corps close range tactical unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV).
The committee notes that the Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory (MCWL) is developing the Dragon Warrior, a low cost,
small UAV that combines the speed of a fixed wing UAV with some
operational characteristics of a rotary wing UAV. The committee
notes that Dragon Warrior would carry a variety of payloads
that are currently being examined by the MCWL to provide the
Marine Corps with a highly, flexible close range reconnaissance
capability that will enlarge the area of influence of a small
expeditionary force.
The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 35204M, an
increase of $5.0 million for Dragon Warrior.
Marine mammal research
The budget request contained $381.1 million in PE 61153N
for the Navy's defense research sciences program, but included
no funds for marine mammal research.
The committee notes recent activities involving potential
interaction of Navy tactical sonar operations with cetaceans in
littoral waters of the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas. The
committee believes that the Navy should place a priority on
gaining an increased understanding of the reaction of marine
mammals to tactical sonar and other underwater sounds that are
characteristic of naval operations.
The committee recommends $381.9 million in PE 61153N, an
increase of $750,000 for the Navy's cooperative marine mammal
research program.
Maritime technology (MARITECH) program
The budget request contains $9.4 million in PE 78730N for
the Maritime Technology (MARITECH) program. The request also
contained $244.4 million in PE 63513N for shipboard system
component development and $46.9 million in PE 63564N for ship
preliminary design and feasibility studies.
The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated the MARITECH program in 1994
to enhance the commercial viability of U.S. shipbuilding and
preserve the defense industrial shipbuilding base. An
independent study of the economic impact of the program
concluded that the Navy shipbuilding industrial base
experienced considerable productivity improvements and cost
savings from the application of technologies developed in the
MARITECH program. In fiscal year 1999 the program was moved to
the Department of the Navy and a five-year, $20 million per
year, Navy MARITECH Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (ASE) was
established to build upon the progress made by the original DARPA
program.
The committee believes that the success of the original
MARITECH program was the result of the application of
innovative management and technologies, and stable funding
throughout the five-years of the program. The committee
believes that the reduction in the budget request for the ASE
breaks the paradigm established in the original program and
will adversely affect the program objective of assisting the
Nation's shipbuilding industry in achieving significant
reductions in the cost and time required for commercial and
Navy ship construction, conversion, and repair. The committee
believes that all Navy shipbuilding programs will benefit from
the MARITECH ASE and should share in funding the program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $15.4 million in PE
78730N, an increase of $6.0 million to fully fund the MARITECH
program. The committee further recommends a decrease of $3.0
million each in PE 63513N and PE 63564N.
Mobile electronic warfare support system
The budget request contained $96.2 million in PE 26313M,
and included $449,000 for improvements to the Marine Corps'
mobile electronic warfare support system (MEWSS).
The committee notes that the Marine Corps' MEWSS tactical
reconnaissance system is a cooperative effort with the Army's
ground based common sensor (GBCS) program. The GBCS program was
terminated and all residual equipment was transferred to the
Marine Corps for use in the MEWSS. However, no funds were
included in the budget request to transfer and integrate GBCS
components into the MEWSS vehicles or to maintain the limited
rate initial production items.
The committee recommends $104.7 million in PE 26313M, an
increase of $8.5 million for the specific purposes of
transferring, integrating and maintaining the equipment gained
from GBCS.
Mobile integrated diagnostic and data analysis system (MIDDAS)
The budget request contained $5.3 million in PE 64771N for
medical development.
The committee understands that the Navy has no trauma
management tools to aid medical personnel in monitoring and
analyzing wounded patient medical data on a real-time basis in
the field. The committee further understands that the Navy has
made significant progress in the development of the MIDDAS to
provide such a capability but that additional resources are
required to complete this effort.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $7.3 million in PE
64771N for medical development, an increase of $2.0 million to
accelerate development of the MIDDAS and demonstrate its
ability to interface with communications and medical data
systems.
Multi-function radar/volume search radar and the Navy's radar roadmap
The budget request contained a total of $305.3 million in
PE 64300N for total ship systems engineering and manufacturing
development for the DD-21 land attack destroyer, including
$69.6 million for the multi-function radar (MFR) for ship
defense and $57.5 million for the volume search radar (VSR) for
air search and track.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162)
expressed concern that significant radar upgrades are required
to meet the objective capabilities of the Navy theater wide
(NTW) system. The report also noted that radar upgrades for TMD
need to be thoroughly integrated with continued radar
improvements required for fleet defense, development of the
cooperative engagement capability (CEC), and development of
next generation Navy destroyers and cruisers. The report called
for a clearly defined roadmap of radar requirements and
technology to identify the best approaches for meeting the
overlapping requirements of fleet defense and TMD.
The committee notes the Navy's submission of the Surface
Navy Radar Roadmap Study as an interim report on the Navy's
radar roadmap. The study states that a series of time-phased
radar development decisions must be made to support varying
surface ship acquisitions:
(1) Immediate decisions to be made regarding the radar
suite configuration for new ships including DD-21 and the CVN-
77 aircraft carrier.
(2) Near term decision on the radar configuration for the
initial phase (Block I) of the NTW program.
(3) Near- to mid-term decisions (2-3 years) for Block II of
the NTW program and for improvement in self-defense
capabilities of ships now in service.
(4) Radar technologies to be developed for the next-
generation air dominance/theater ballistic missile defense
(TBMD) cruiser that would reach the fleet in 2015.
The plan provides a strategy to reduce the large number of
redundant, obsolescing radars currently in the fleet to a small
number of radars common across multiple ship classes. The plan
confirms the need for:
(1) A radar suite composed of MFR and VSR for ships whose
radar requirements are limited to self-defense and air control.
(2) A next generation radar suite, either derived from MFR/
VSR, or perhaps involving one additional radar, for ships with
TBMD and area anti-air warfare requirements.
The committee expresses concern that a clearly defined and
funded radar roadmap is necessary to ensure the necessary
upgrades to legacy radar systems and the development of new
radar systems. The committee awaits Secretary of the Navy
approval of the radar roadmap, delivery to the congressional
defense committees, and incorporation of the approved program
in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Multipurpose processor
The budget request contained $34.8 million in PE 64503N for
submarine systems equipment development, including $28.2
million for submarine sonar improvements.
The committee notes that that the Acoustic Rapid
Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Insertion (A-RCI) program has provided
a tremendous improvement in sonar processing capabilities
through the application of a cost-effective multipurpose
acoustic signal processing technology and the advanced process
build software development initiative. The committee continues
to support incorporation of this advanced multipurpose signal
processing technology into the Navy's acoustic surveillance and
intelligence systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $49.8 million in PE
64503N, an increase of $15.0 million, to support the
accelerated development and extension of common acoustic
processing capabilities for undersea warfare applications
through the use of the multipurpose processor.
Naval space surveillance
The budget request contained $2.0 million in PE 35927N for
the Navy Space Surveillance network life extension activities.
The committee notes that the budget request for the fiscal
year 2001 included a request for design concept activities that
were provided in fiscal year 2000. Therefore, the committee
recommends $1.4 million in PE 35927N, a decrease of $600,000.
Navy mine countermeasures program
The budget request contained a total of $647.3 million for
the Department of the Navy mine countermeasures program,
including $334.9 million for research, development, test and
evaluation, $118.4 million for procurement, and $177.4 million
for operations and maintenance.
The committee has reviewed the U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Plan
and the Department of the Navy's mine countermeasures (MCM)
program for fiscal year 2001. The plan highlights mine warfare
as a core competency of the naval services and near-, mid-, and
long-term measures to ensure the continued readiness of the
Navy's dedicated force of 26 MCM ships and the development and
fielding of organic MCM systems in the fleet.
The committee notes that the increased funding levels
provided for the MCM program through fiscal year 2005 will
allow deployment of the programmed organic MCM capability to a
carrier battle group in 2005, as well as continued
modernization of dedicated MCM forces. The committee also notes
that the Navy is establishing a capstone requirements document
for a MCM system of systems that will baseline current
requirements and identify shortfalls in existing MCM systems.
Because the deployment of advanced MCM systems to the fleet
will require new tactics, techniques, and procedures for their
employment, the committee recommends that the Secretary of the
Navy consider the establishment of a Mine Warfare Battle
Laboratory to accelerate the introduction of new technologies
and concepts of operations for both MCM forces.
The committee is aware that the Navy has begun an analysis
of alternatives for replacement of the USS INCHON (MCS-12) MCM
support ship and a second analysis of alternatives for a future
MCM(X) ship for the dedicated MCM fleet. The committee notes
that technical problems encountered with the development of the
shallow water assault breaching system (SABRE) and the Army's
cancellation of the ``Grizzly'' combat breaching vehicle
program severely impacts the development of the Navy and
Marines in-stride assault mine-clearing capability. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the
congressional defense committees the revisions to the MCM
plan and programs that address these issues with the submission of the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Advanced sensors for mine countermeasures and oceanography
The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for
oceanographic and atmospheric technology, including $22.6
million for applied research in natural and environmental
influences on MCM systems and littoral oceanography.
The committee notes significant progress in the development
of advanced underwater chemical, optical, and physical sensors
and sensor systems for mine countermeasures and other
underwater sensor applications, including the successful test
of an underwater mass spectrometer for detection and mapping of
trace quantities of volatile organic compounds that might be
associated with underwater mines, chemical or biological
agents, or hazardous wastes. The committee also notes the
development of a small spectrophotometric and fluormetric
analysis system for detection of trace elements underwater and
of a high-speed, high resolution laser line scanner for three-
dimensional mapping sea floor topography, both of which have
potential application for mine countermeasures and other
purposes.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
62435N to continue the development and demonstration of
advanced underwater chemical, optical, and physical sensors and
sensor systems for mine countermeasures and other applications.
AN/AQS-20/X mine hunting sonar
The budget request contained $47.3 million in PE 64373N for
airborne mine countermeasures engineering and manufacturing
development, including $14.9 million to continue development of
the AN/AQS-20/X helicopter-towed, mine hunting sonar system.
The AN/AQS-20/X will be the common mine hunting sonar
system for the submersible AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System
(RMS) and the CH-60S airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM)
helicopter that will provide the primary organic mine counter-
measures capabilities for the fleet. The committee notes the
progress that has been made in the development of the AN/AQS-
20/X mine hunting sonar and the Navy's decision in fiscal year
1999 to add an electro-optical sensor to the system's mine
detection, localization and classification capabilities. The
committee also notes that incorporating current state-of-the-
art, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) processor technology in
the AN/AQS-20/X would significantly improve system performance,
eliminate obsolescent components dating from the early 1990s,
permit any system to operate from either the AMCM helicopter or
the RMS, and significantly upgrade computer-aided detection and
classification of mines and mine-like objects.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $64.3 million in PE
64373N, an increase of $17.0 million for incorporation of COTS
processor technology in the AN/AQS-20/X mine hunting sonar.
Synthetic aperture sonar development for long-term mine reconnaissance
system
The budget request contained $97.9 million in PE 63502N for
demonstration and validation of surface and shallow water mine
countermeasures, including $26.1 million for development of
unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV).
The committee notes that the Navy developed the near-term
mine reconnaissance system (NMRS) as a single operational
prototype mine hunting UUV system, which is capable of mine
detection, classification, and localization, and is launched
and recovered from an SSN-688 class submarine. Employing
forward- and side-scanning sonar systems, the AN/BLQ-11 long-
term mine reconnaissance system (LMRS) will replace the limited
capability provided by the NMRS with a submarine launched and
recoverable, autonomous capability that will have increased
endurance, reliability, and search rate, and will provide the
fleet a greatly improved capability to conduct clandestine mine
reconnaissance. The committee also notes that the Chief of
Naval Operations has identified the development of a synthetic
aperture sonar capability for the LMRS as an unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends $103.4 million in PE 63502N,
including $5.5 million for development of a synthetic aperture
sonar capability for the LMRS.
Naval modeling and simulation
The budget request contained $9.1 million in PE 38601N for
naval modeling and simulation.
The committee notes recent advances in modeling and
simulation for command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems.
These advances demonstrate the use of efficient systems
engineering and business practices and leverage and promote
simulation based acquisition applied to the assessment,
planning, testing, and technology insertion for C4ISR systems.
The committee also notes progress in modeling and simulation
systems engineering initiatives that aid operations analysis,
engineering assessment, and additional efforts directed at
understanding model development, fidelity, accuracy, and
simulation efficiencies and their effects on tradeoff analyses
involving C4ISR systems. The committee supports the development
and understanding of new modeling and simulation tools that
will assist in more effective decision-making and in the design
of C4ISR systems and information architectures.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $12.1 million in PE
38601N, an increase of $3.0 million to continue initiatives for
the development of improvements in C4ISR modeling and
simulation.
New composite materials for aircraft canopies
The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 62122N for
applied research in aircraft technology.
The committee notes that aircraft windscreens and canopies
are made of relatively soft materials, which can degrade over
time, resulting in significant replacement costs. The committee
is aware of proposals for the use of nano-composite materials
that combine the ultraviolet stability, hardness and abrasion
resistance of glass and the durability and adhesion of a
plastic coating, offering significant improvements over
conventional coating materials. The committee believes that the
successful development and demonstration of the use of such
materials on canopies and windscreens could significantly
reduce operations and maintenance cost for the armed services.
The committee recommend $23.1 million in PE 62122N, an
increase of $2.0 million for applied research and development
of nano-composite hard coat materials for aircraft windscreens
and canopies.
Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition
The budget request contained $28.6 million in PE 63609N for
conventional munitions demonstration and validation.
The committee notes the progress in the development and
demonstration of optical correlation technology to enhance
target discrimination and aim point selection for next-
generation weapon system seekers.
The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 63609N, an
increase of $5.0 million to continue the program for
development and demonstration of miniature, rugged optical
correlators for automatic target recognition and improved aim
point selection for the Navy's Standard Missile.
Optically multiplexed wideband radar beam-forming array
The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for
applied research in communications, command, control,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology,
including $17.6 million for radar technology.
The committee notes that Congress provided a total of $4.0
million in fiscal year 2000 to initiate a cooperative program
for research, development, and demonstration of a prototype
optically multiplexed, wideband, radar beam-forming array that
uses optical wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM). The
committee also notes that the use of optical WDM is expected to
reduce hardware complexity and system cost in a wideband
electronically-steered active radar antenna that has high
instantaneous bandwidth and the resolution necessary for
theater ballistic missile defense and ship self defense in a
littoral environment.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62232N to continue the program for development and
demonstration of an optically multiplexed wideband radar beam-
forming array.
P-3 modernization program
The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 64221N for
the P-3 maritime patrol aircraft modernization program, which
provides upgrades to the aircraft's systems in order to enhance
its surface and subsurface tracking and classification
capabilities.
The committee continues to note the increasing demands
placed by the major theater commanders on the P-3 for
intelligence and surveillance missions in maritime, regional,
and littoral operations. The committee also notes the Navy's
cancellation of the sustained readiness program for the P-3 and
the postponement of previous plans to initiate an analysis of
alternatives for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft. Yet,
theNavy's Integrated Submarine Warfare Roadmap cites the need
for improvements in P-3 capabilities that are critical to near-term
anti-submarine warfare operational capabilities. The committee report
on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162) expressed the belief that increased
priority must be given to the maintenance of a robust, continuing
research and development to sustain current P-3 capabilities and
support introduction of new capabilities and recommended that the
Secretary of the Navy review the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
the P-3 to ensure that it follows the program priorities established in
the roadmap.
The committee is concerned that the Navy is not taking the
steps necessary to maintain the P-3 fleet and support the
introduction of new operational capabilities that may be
required in the future. The committee is aware of the need for
the Navy to balance its competing program priorities among
available funds, but believes that there is a systemic problem
in the Navy in which insufficient attention is given to funding
for the sustainment, technology refreshment, and improvement of
legacy systems that are expected to remain in service and have
no programmed replacement. The average age of the P-3 fleet is
over 20 years, and the aircraft and its weapons systems are
expected to remain in service until after 2020. The aircraft
electrical system was designed for analog equipment and has
become less compatible with modern digital equipment as
technology has advanced. As expressed in previous reports, the
committee believes that additional funding is required for
combat systems development and integration of commercial-off-
the-shelf signal processing technology to ensure that the P-3
provides the advanced anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface
warfare, and surveillance capabilities that are required by the
fleet.
Therefore, the committee recommends $7.8 million in PE
64221N, an increase of $1.9 million for the design,
demonstration, and testing of a new electrical system and an
increase of $3.0 million for advanced concept systems
development. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
report on the Navy's plans for sustaining the operational
capabilities of the P-3 and for development of a replacement
aircraft to the congressional defense committees with the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
P-3 special mission squadron sensor upgrade
The budget request contained $ 27.5 million in PE 35207N
for manned reconnaissance systems research and development,
including $2.2 million for special mission P-3 reconnaissance
squadrons.
The committee notes the increased operational requirements
placed on the P-3 special mission reconnaissance squadrons by
the major combatant commanders and the need for improvements in
aircraft sensors capabilities identified by the Chief of Naval
Operations as an unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million in PE
35207N to accelerate the development of three sensor upgrades
for special mission P-3 aircraft squadrons.
Parametric airborne dipping sonar
The budget request contained $58.3 million in PE 63747N for
undersea warfare advanced technology development and $69.9
million in PE 64216N for the multi-mission helicopter upgrade
program, but included no funds for the parametric airborne
dipping sonar (PADS).
The committee notes that the Navy's advanced technology
demonstration of a prototype PADS has indicated the significant
potential of parametric sonar technology against both mine-like
and submarine targets in littoral waters. The results of the
Navy's at-sea test of PADS indicated that the essential goals
of the PADS demonstration had been met and suggest PADS
potential for mine detection. The Secretary of the Navy's
evaluation report, dated January 1999, stated that the PADS
technology merits further pursuit and that the Navy intended to
continue demonstration of parametric sonar technology. The
committee is aware that the Navy plans at-sea tests of the PADS
prototype against submarine targets later this summer. Pending
the successful completion of those tests, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional
defense committees on the Navy's plan for further development
of the PADS system with the submission of the fiscal 2002
budget request.
The committee recommends no additional funds for PADS in PE
63747N and PE 64216N and awaits recommendations from the
Secretary of the Navy regarding the program.
Power node control centers
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for
advanced development of surface ship and submarine hull,
mechanical, and engineering advanced technology.
The committee notes the progress made in the development
and demonstration of power node control centers for integrated
switching, conversion, distribution, and control of electrical
power aboard naval vessels. The committee is aware of other new
electric power distribution and propulsion system architectures
that can be automatically reconfigured to maintain the combat
readiness of the shipboard navigation, communication, and
weapons systems following accidental or hostile damage. The
committee also notes the Navy's plans for the application of
power node control centers in integrated power systems for the
DD-21 land attack destroyer and other ships.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63508N to continue the development and demonstration of power
node control centers and other flexible power distribution
architectures and their application in integrated power
systems.
Project M
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for
advanced development of surface ship and submarine hull,
mechanical, and engineering advanced technology, but contained
no funds to continue Project M development of advanced
machinery quieting technology.
The committee notes the initial reports of successful
testing of Project M quieting technology installed in the one-
quarter scale submarine at the Navy's acoustic test range, and
believes that the technology is ready for transition from the
Navy's science and technology base to potential applications in
Navy propulsion and other machinery systems. The committee is
aware that an issue of the potential magnetic signature of the
technology must be resolved as a part of any transition to ship
board applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63508N to transition Project M technology for Navy systems
applications. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to report to the congressional defense committees on the Navy's
plan for transition of the technology with the submission of
the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Radio frequency integration and testing environment
The budget request contained $270.3 million in PE 65864N
for test and evaluation support.
The committee notes that the proliferation of antennas and
radio frequency emitters on board Navy ships results in
potentially severe electromagnetic interference among
communications and sensor systems, which compete for bandwidth
in the electromagnetic spectrum, unless careful attention is
given to electromagnetic compatibility. While research and
development continues to pursue the use of common aperture
antenna arrays to reduce shipboard ``antenna farms'', the
requirement to resolve potential electromagnetic compatibility
issues can only grow as demands for communications channels and
bandwidth increase and new sensors which use the
electromagnetic spectrum are deployed to counter new threats.
The committee believes that the requirement may exist for a
testing environment for radio frequency integration and ship
electronic interoperability that would address the
electromagnetic compatibility of ships in the demanding radio
frequency environment of modern, joint littoral warfare. Such a
testing environment would provide the capability for
instrumented electronic testing for ship-based equipment to
identify and resolve electromagnetic interference problems,
before the deployment of the equipment to the fleet. The
committee believes that a fully instrumented, electromagnetic
simulation environment, similar to that currently used in
aircraft and telecommunications system testing, would be re-
configurable for different ship classes and capable of
participating in distributed interactive simulations. This
capability could enable fleet analysis, technology evaluation,
and development of new tactics, techniques, and procedures.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in
coordination with the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation, to conduct an assessment and provide
recommendations on requirements for electromagnetic
compatibility testing of ship-based equipment and the potential
need to establish a radio frequency integration and ship
interoperability testing environment. The committee further
directs the Secretary to submit the results of the assessment
and any recommendations to the congressional defense committees
with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The committee recommends $270.3 million, the budget
request, in PE 65864N for Navy test and evaluation support.
Remote precision gun
The budget request contained $ 54.7 million in PE 63640M
for Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations, but
included no funds for the remote precision gun.
The committee is aware that a remotely operated precision
gun platform is being developed to reduce risk to personnel
under a variety of conditions. The committee notes that this
remote fire system allows the operator to remain out of the
line of fire and eliminates human error in aiming and firing a
weapon.
The committee recommends $55.7 million in PE63640M, an
increase of $1.0 million for completion of development of the
remote precision gun aiming platform for military applications.
S-3B surveillance system upgrade program
The budget request contained $455,000 in PE 64217N for
engineering and manufacturing development for the S-3 weapons
system improvement program.
The committee notes that the objective of the S-3B
surveillance system upgrade program is the integration of off-
the-shelf radar, electro-optic, and infrared sensors;
electronic support measures; and tactical data links to
demonstrate an enhanced stand-off capability for this systems
that could be achieved with low risk and at relatively low
cost.
The committee strongly supports efforts to improve Navy
battle group operations and, therefore, recommends $12.5
million in PE 64217N, an increase of $12.0 million to continue
the S-3B surveillance system upgrade prototype demonstration
program.
Ship service fuel cell program
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for
surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical
advanced technology development, including $17.6 million for
advanced electrical systems.
The committee notes the progress in the Navy's marine fuel
cell program in the development of advanced ship service fuel
cell power systems as affordable, alternative electrical
sources for ship service power and the potential use of such
systems in the DD-21 land attack destroyer program and for
other ship service power applications. The committee notes
program emphasis on leveraging commercial fuel cell technology
and solving Navy issues such as operation in salt-laden air,
shipboard shock and vibration, and reforming diesel and other
common naval fuels for use in fuel cells systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE
63508N to accelerate the on-going Phase II program for
development and demonstration of a molten carbonate ship
service fuel cell power system.
Silicon carbide and gallium nitride semiconductor substrates
The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials, electronics and computer
technology.
The committee is aware that silicon carbide and gallium
nitride are wide band-gap semiconductor materials with unique
physical and electrical properties, which make possible the
fabrication of a next-generation of microelectronic devices
that will be capable of operating in radiation environments and
at high temperatures, high voltages, high power levels, and
microwave frequencies. These capabilities will enable a wide
range of applications in military and commercial systems such
as advanced radars, power systems, sensors and satellite
communications. The committee continues to support the
development of silicon carbide and gallium nitride materials
and encourages the establishment of partnerships with industry
to exploit the technology for commercial uses.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62234N for the continued development of silicon carbide and
gallium nitride semiconductor materials and microelectronic
applications.
Single flux quantum electronics
The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials and radio frequency/electro-
optics/infrared electronics technology.
The committee notes the steady progress in laboratory
demonstration of single flux quantum electronics and the
potential of this technology for applications in high-speed
military electronic systems and the processing of high-speed
electronic signals. The committee notes that the development of
the technology can be accelerated to take single flux quantum
electronics from the present stage of component demonstration
in the laboratory to the development of integrated modules that
demonstrate key functions needed for specific military
electronics applications, including analog to digital
conversion of very high-speed electronic signals.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $3.0 million in PE
62234N for the initial two-year phase of a program for the
development and demonstration of single flux quantum electronic
technology for military applications.
SSGN Conversion
The budget request contained $34.8 M in PE 63559N to
initiate the option for converting Ohio class Trident ballistic
missile submarines (SSBN), currently scheduled for retirement,
to a conventional cruise missile submarine (SSGN)
configuration.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
assessing alternatives to maintain the nuclear attack submarine
(SSN) force at the minimum force level of 55 SSNs, as
recommended in the recent submarine force requirements study
approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee notes that
the Secretary of Defense directed the addition of $1.1 billion
spread across the future years defense plan (FYDP) to sustain
the 55 SSN structure by refueling four additional SSN-688s. The
committee notes that the Secretary directed that conversion of
up to four Trident SSBNs to an SSGN configuration be considered
as an alternative to SSN refueling to maintain the 55 SSN
force.
In the statement of managers which accompanied the
conference report on S.1059 (H. Rept. 106-301), the conferees
directed the Secretary to initiate arms control studies and
cost and operational effectiveness analysis required to provide
the basis for a defense acquisition milestone decision to
proceed with the SSBN-to-SSGN conversion program. The committee
notes that significant arms control issues relating to the
Trident SSBN to SSGN conversion remain unresolved and that the
cost and operational effectiveness assessment of the SSGN
conversion is incomplete.
The committee notes that the Navy's notional plan for an
SSGN conversion program would begin refueling and conversion of
the first SSBN in fiscal year 2003. The notional schedule
includes a Milestone 0 review by the Defense Acquisition Board
late in fiscal year 2000, preliminary design and risk reduction
studies in fiscal year 2001, a Milestone I/II decision to begin
engineering and manufacturing development in fiscal year 2002,
and initial operational capability for the first SSGN in fiscal
year 2007. The committee notes, however, that the Navy budget
projection for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 contains no
additional funds for the program.
Senior Navy officials have confirmed that the budget
request of $34.8 million is sufficient only to sustain the
option for a version of the SSGN accountable under Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and that $260 million is
required in fiscal year 2001 to retain the option for a treaty-
compliant SSGN conversion. The Navy estimates the cost of
converting four SSBNs to START-accountable SSGNs at $1.3
billion and the cost of conversion to START-compliant SSGNs at
$3.4 billion. Either of these two versions of SSGNs would
require an additional $1.1 billion for refueling if SSGN
conversion is conducted in addition to SSN refueling.
Navy officials acknowledged that the budget request is
predicated on indications from the Administration that future
START negotiations might include discussion of a change to the
START protocol which would exempt non-treaty compliant SSGNs
from START accountability. The committee is concerned that the
proposed START-accountable SSGN acquisition strategy, dependent
on successful resolution of START negotiations including a new
protocol allowing special consideration of SSGNs, does not
support the Navy's stated requirements to initiate design
immediately in fiscal year 2001 to support a fiscal year 2002
milestone decision to begin the program.
Navy officials indicated that the converted SSBNs, although
possessing unique operational capabilities, would not satisfy
the mission capabilities required of nuclear attack submarines,
and further indicated that an SSGN conversion program would
affect the submarine industrial base and the schedule for the
Virginia class SSN construction.
The committee expresses deep concern for the initiation of
additional major program acquisition programs not currently in
the Navy's outyear planning budgets. These new efforts threaten
the funding available for Navy aircraft modernization and ship
construction programs through the end of the FYDP and beyond,
and are, (as noted elsewhere in this report), resulting in
consideration of significant changes in modernization and
procurement programs required to maintain essential Navy
capabilities and core competencies. The funding required for
Navy core programs and the cost of the SSGN conversion program,
even if the arms control and cost and operational effectiveness
issues can be resolved, will severely impact the Navy's future
budget projections. The committee also notes that a development
strategy for preserving the SSGN conversion option that is
based on the assumption of a willingness to negotiate an
exception to START could, if the negotiations were not
successful, have a significant impact on the U.S. strategic
nuclear force levels under START II and an unacceptable impact
under proposed START III limits.
The committee recommends $34.8 M in PE 63559N, the budget
request for the SSGN conversion program. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to providethe congressional defense
committees with an approved acquisition strategy and program plan for
the SSBN-SSGN conversion that identifies program funding and schedule,
which addresses a milestone schedule for resolution of the arms control
issues and a decision as to whether the SSGN shall be START-accountable
or START compliant, with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
Submarine sonar dome window
The budget request contained $207.1 million in PE 64558N
for the Virginia class SSN program.
The committee notes the Navy's progress in the application
for submarine sonar domes and windows of an advanced glass-
reinforced plastic and rubber structural acoustic sandwich
material system, which was originally developed for surface
ship sonar domes and windows. The committee understands that
at-sea testing of a quarter-scale submarine sonar dome
indicates potentially significant improvements in sonar
performance and sonar dome durability for the VIRGINIA class
SSN and that system manufacturing costs for this dome should be
reduced compared to the current sonar dome.
The committee recommends $209.1 million in PE 64558N for
Virginia class SSN engineering and manufacturing development,
an increase of $2.0 million to continue the program for
fabrication of a full-scale sonar dome using the advanced
acoustic sandwich material system for further evaluation and
testing.
Supply chain management and development best practices
The budget request contained $949,000 in PE 65804N for
technical information services that support cooperative
advanced technology initiatives between the Navy and U.S.
industry with the goals of improving affordability and reducing
life cycle costs of new and modernized Navy systems.
The committee notes that technology advances by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, other military services, and
other government agencies provide the Navy with an opportunity
to leverage research and development investments that could
lead to radical improvements in the affordability and
effectiveness of Navy systems. Similarly, technology and
production and business practices developed by industry can
also contribute to the development of more effective and
affordable defense systems. With a growing reliance on industry
as the integrator of ships and other weapon systems, the
understanding and promotion of new technologies and the
adoption of best business practices between government and
industry can result in significant improvements in operational
effectiveness and affordability over the life cycle of systems.
The committee notes, however, that logistical support and
supply activities are often brought into the development cycle
at late stages and are, as a result, not able to influence the
development of the system at a time when the adoption of
improvements in management and business practices could have
the greatest effect on the system life cycle.
The committee strongly supports coordination and
involvement by the materiel developer, the user, the logistical
support chain, government, and industry in the development of
new systems and the modernization of existing systems. The
committee believes that there is much to be gained from the
development and adoption of best business practices in the
materiel and systems development life cycle from its initial
stages through research and development, acquisition and
fielding, and support of the systems in the field, and in
facilitating the exchange of information and technology between
industry and government for this purpose.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $ 4.9 million in PE
65804N, an increase of $4.0 million to establish a program that
will facilitate the development and adoption of logistical best
business and management practices among government and industry
that are involved in the development, acquisition, and support
of defense systems.
Surface ship torpedo defense
The budget request included no funds for continuation of
the Navy's joint surface ship torpedo defense program with the
United Kingdom.
The committee recommends $8.4 million in PE 63506N to
continue the joint collaborative surface ship torpedo defense
program with the United Kingdom for upgrades to the SLQ-25A
torpedo countermeasures capability and development and
integration of promising soft kill and hard kill
countermeasures.
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles
The budget request contained $113.1 million in PE 35204N
for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funding
to continue development of the multi-function self-aligned gate
(MSAG).
The committee is aware that the MSAG technology
successfully demonstrated ability to transmit and receive full-
motion video and communication. This new form of antenna, with
no moving parts, offers reduced life-cycle costs and enables
production of light, conformal, multi-beam antennas for
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV) and associated
systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
35204N to construct and test a line-of-sight array for the
tactical control system for the UAV.
Vacuum electronics
The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials and radio frequency, electro-
optics, and infrared electronics technology, including $10.0
million for applied research in vacuum electronics.
The committee is aware of the potential need for increased
funding levels for vacuum technology research and development
in order to support the development of advanced high power
vacuum tubes for Navy radar and other applications that cannot
be met with current solid state devices. In the committee
report on H.R. 1402 (H. Rept. 106-162), the committee noted its
support for continuation of a robust vacuum electronics
research and development program within the Department of
Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies. The committee
directed the Secretary of the Navy to assess DOD's requirements
for advanced vacuum electronics technology and to report the
results of that assessment and the long-term funding plan for
the vacuum electronics program.
The committee notes that the Secretary's interim report to
the congressional defense committees, dated March 7, 2000,
states that an ongoing assessment of vacuum electronics and
solid state technologies and applications will lead to the
development of a long-term investment strategy and roadmap for
future vacuum electronics and solid state technology
activities. The results of the assessment will be reported to
the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2002
President's budget request. In the interim, the Department of
the Navy intends to continue its current investment level in
vacuum electronics.
The committee recommends $10.0 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in vacuum electronics technology and awaits
the Secretary's final report and recommendations for the long-
term vacuum technology program with the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration
The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for
advanced technology transition, including the vectored thrust
ducted propeller (VTDP) compound helicopter advanced technology
demonstration project, and $13.2 million in PE 64212N for
development of the CH-60S airborne mine counter measures
helicopter.
The committee notes that the Navy has placed a high
priority on the development of an organic airborne mine
countermeasures capability and the demonstration of a variant
of the CH-60 helicopter for the towed airborne mine counter
measures (AMCM) missions. As a back-up technology, the Navy
plans an advanced technology demonstration (ATD) of the VTDP
compound helicopter to demonstrate and assess the helicopter's
towed AMCM capability, other multi-mission capabilities, and
life cycle cost effectiveness.
The committee notes reports by Navy officials that early
results from CH-60 land- and sea-based tow tests indicate that
the helicopter should be able to perform the towed AMCM mission
and that the final phase of the tow test will begin in late
fiscal year 2000. Following integration of AMCM systems and
sensors on the CH-60S helicopter, the Navy plans initial
operational capability of the helicopter in its organic AMCM
role in fiscal year 2005.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162)
directed the Secretary of the Navy to assess the requirements,
schedule, and cost of conducting the ATD for the VTDP compound
helicopter. The Secretary's report, dated March 2000, states
that the requirement to demonstrate the potential value of this
back-up technology for the AMCM mission and other multi-mission
applications remains unchanged, and that the Navy has
programmed the funds required through fiscal year 2002 to
complete the demonstration, including $11.3 million in fiscal
year 2001. The Department plans to begin a two-phased ATD in
the third quarter of fiscal year 2000, contingent upon
successful completion of VTDP ground test, and to complete
flight testing in fiscal year 2004. The report also indicated
delays in completion of the ground test are being assessed for
their effect on project cost, schedule, and risk. The
Secretary's report concludes that the Departmentwill proceed
with the ATD as planned and will advise the Congressional defense
committees regarding any significant information that would affect the
project's progress.
The committee intends to monitor closely the Navy's
progress in development of the CH-60S helicopter for the AMCM
mission and progress in the VTDP compound helicopter ATD. The
committee recommends $11.3 million, the requested amount, in PE
63792N for continuation of the VTDP compound helicopter
demonstration project.
Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for
advanced development of surface ship and submarine hull,
mechanical, and engineering advanced technology.
The committee continues to support the development and
application of technologies that will lead to lower cost
designs for future naval ships. The committee notes the
progress that has been made in the development of a virtual,
distributed test bed that supports the integration of power
electronics into ship systems. As a part of the Navy's program
leading to the development of an all-electric ship, the virtual
test bed provides a virtual test laboratory of new software and
hardware modeling tools for shipboard machinery design, and
allows government and industry ship designers to evaluate
machinery alternatives in a virtual prototype before committing
to full-scale development.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63508N to continue the development and application of the
virtual test bed for the design and evaluation of advanced
shipboard electrical power system concepts and designs.
Air Force RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $13,685.6 million for Air
Force RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$13,677.1 million, a decrease of $8.5 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Air
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the
table and in the classified annex to this report.
Items of Special Interest
21st century affordable aircraft thrust demonstration project
The budget request contained $13.2 million in PE 63245F for
flight vehicle performance and supportability technologies but
included no funds for the 21st century affordable aircraft
thrust demonstration project, a unique, science and technology
approach to legacy aircraft modernization which provides an
integrated, life-cycle focus for key technologies that support
acquisition affordability processes.
The committee is increasingly concerned with the rising
operations and support costs for the services' aging inventory
of fighter and attack aircraft and believes that such rising
costs have the potential to adversely impact the budgets
required to both modernize and maintain future operational
readiness. To address this concern, the committee understands
that the Air Force Research Laboratory completed a fiscal year
1999 study which determined that near-term advanced technology,
when coupled with innovative acquisition, design, production
and support processes, could produce a new and more capable F-
15C aircraft. The committee also understands that the
aircraft's 20-year life cycle cost, including acquisition,
would be dramatically less that the projected cost of both
upgrading and sustaining the existing F-15C fleet.
In an effort to reduce rising operations and support costs,
the committee recommends $69.2 million in PE 63245F, an
increase of $56.0 million to begin construction of two
demonstration aircraft consistent with the Air Force Research
Laboratory's fiscal year 1999 study and believes that lessons
learned and data collected from this project will be applicable
to aircraft of all services.
Aging landing gear life extension
The budget request contained $14.2 million in PE 65011F for
RDT&E For Aging Aircraft.
The committee notes the increasing incidence of Class A
aviation mishaps attributable to landing gear failure, as well
as rising Mission Incapable rates for high priority aircraft
such as the KC-135 and C-130 due to limited availability of
replacement landing gear components. The committee is aware
that the Air Force is working to develop improved components
and advanced inspection and overhaul equipment to address a
number of aging problems for the current inventories of U.S.
aircraft. However, the limited funds available in the RDT&E For
Aging Aircraft program are insufficient to support the
promising goals of the Aging Landing Gear Life Extension
(ALGLE) program.
The committee recommends $26.2 million in PE65011F, an
increase of $12.0 million for acceleration of the ALGLE
program.
Airborne laser
The budget request contained $148.6 million in PE 63319F
for the Airborne Laser (ABL) program.
The committee is disturbed that the budget request
represents a reduction of $92.4 million compared to the funding
level projected in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The
committee understands that this reduction will delay the first
lethal test against a missile by two years, from fiscal year
2003 to fiscal year 2005. The committee further understands
that the Air Force reduced ABL funding throughout the future
years defense plan by approximately fifty percent, a decrease
that would delay initial operational capability by five years
or more. The committee notes that, prior to these funding
decreases, the program was on schedule, meeting costs and
technical milestones.
The committee also notes that the Air Force justified the
proposed reductions on the basis that the service has higher
priorities. The committee is aware that the ABL is an important
part of the ballistic missile defense architecture developed by
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), yet the
changes to the ABL budget profile and the program delays that
would result were not coordinated in any way with the Director
of the BMDO.
The committee continues to believe that ballistic missile
defense remains a very high priority and that the challenge of
meeting rapidly evolving missile threats requires an integrated
approach. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
(section 235) to establish a new program element within
defense-wide research and development for the ABL program. The
committee strongly recommends that the Secretary of Defense
realign resources throughout the future years defense program
to assure that the BMDO can manage the ABL program to achieve
timely development and testing.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish
the Director of BMDO as the ABL program acquisition executive
through development and operational testing, at which time the
committee would support a recommendation by the Secretary of
Defense to transfer procurement responsibilities to the Air
Force. The committee understands that the Department of the Air
Force has executed this program since its inception and directs
the Director of BMDO assure that the Department of the Air
Force continue to execute program management during ABL
development and operational testing. The committee further
understands that the Air Force will provide ABL training and
that Air Force personnel will operate the ABL system when
deployed.
The committee recommends no funds in PE 63319F, a decrease
of $148.6 million, and $231.0 million in a new PE 63XXXC, an
increase of $82.4 million and transfer of all funding for ABL.
Airborne reconnaissance systems
The budget request contained $136.9 million in PE 35206F
for airborne reconnaissance systems.
The committee notes that the joint signals intelligence
(SIGINT) avionics family (JSAF) under development, consisting
of a low-band subsystem (LBSS) and high band subsystem (HBSS),
has applications in several intelligence collection platforms.
The committee notes that the joint airborne SIGINT architecture
(JASA) provides future SIGINT payloads, such as JSAF, with a
standard architecture, thereby providing the potential for
reducing costs through use of commercial off-the-shelf
technologies. The committee fully supports the research and
development of this program in order to determine if the JASA
potential can be realized. However, the committee is concerned
that procurement of JSAF is not properly funded and sequenced
to preclude adverse effects on intelligence collection
operations. Furthermore, the committee is aware that the
emerging commercial silicon germanium (SiGe) technology may
offer significant size, weight, performance, and cost
advantages over existing technology, and believes it may well
be beneficially applied to the JSAF requirements. The committee
strongly recommends rapid development of SiGe technology for
appropriate applications.
Therefore, the committee recommends $136.9 million in PE
35206F. Further, the committee makes specific procurement
funding modifications elsewhere in this report to better
support both the continued development of the JSAF and
operational SIGINT capabilities already fielded.
Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) partnership
The budget request contained $3.4 million in PE 63856F for
the Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office Partnership.
The committee understands that $2.0 million of the funding
requested would be used for studies and analysis of synergies
between the Air Force and the NRO. The committee notes that the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Space, also serves as the
director of the NRO. The committee believes that coordination
between the two organizations is inherently institutionalized,
and should be a matter of routine.
The committee recommends $1.4 million in PE 63856F, a
reduction of $2.0 million.
Air Force science and technology
The budget request contained $1,291.3 million for Air Force
science and technology (S&T) funding, including $206.1 million
for basic research, $590.3 for applied research, and $494.9 for
advanced technology development.
The committee notes that the total request for Air Force
S&T represents a decrease from the amount provided for fiscal
year 2000, and a third consecutive year of decline for this
critical area of modernization investment. The Air Force has
shown modest improvement in this area by increasing the fiscal
year 2001 S&T request above the forecasted level. However, the
committee remains concerned that Air Force modernization
investments still reflect a much higher priority on near-term
modernization and sustainment of legacy systems than on
sustaining adequate levels of investment in S&T to enable
future modernization.
The committee is aware that the Air Force is designated as
the lead service for a number of technology areas including
aerospace propulsion, flight vehicle technology, and space
systems development, and that many Army, Navy, and Marine Corps
acquisition programs depend on adequate levels of S&T funding
being sustained in these areas. The committee is also aware
that the Department of Defense has recently taken action to
correct the unacceptable decline in the Air Force funding for
aerospace propulsion and fully supports the revitalized
emphasis in this important technology area.
To correct the investment imbalances caused by the Air
Force prioritization of legacy system sustainment and near term
modernization, the committee recommends an increase of $77.2
million for Air Force science and technology as described in
the following adjustments to the specific programs. Elsewhere
in this report, the committee provides support for special
materials development including an increase of $2.0 million in
PE 62102F for intermediate modulus carbon fiber and ultra-high
thermal conductivity graphite materials.
Aerospace propulsion
The budget request contained $116.3 million in PE 62203F
for aerospace propulsion applied research, $38.0 million in PE
62111N for air and surface launched weapons technology, and
$24.3 million in PE 63302F for space and missile rocket
propulsion technology.
The committee notes the numerous advances in Integrated
High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) and
Integrated High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology
(IHPRPT) achieved over the past several years. The IHPRPT
initiative has enabled the services to pursue needed advances
in liquid and solid propulsion research for small missile
projects such as the lightweight, low cost SPIKE infantry
guided missile project and the solid fuel ramjet deep strike
missile. Programs that benefit from IHPTET include F-22 Raptor
and Joint Strike Fighter advanced turbine engines, all current
turbine engine aircraft programs, and numerous strategic and
tactical missile systems.
The committee also notes important technology advances in
the area of magnetic bearing cooling turbine designs that offer
significant improvements in operational readiness and safety of
the KC-135 and C-130 aircraft fleets. The magnetic bearing
provides near frictionless bearing capability resulting in
dramatically reduced lifecycle costs and improved mission
capable rates.
The committee notes that many space launch vehicles, both
planned and currently under development, will transition from
traditional propulsion systems to high-pressure systems that
use liquid oxygen and kerosene. The committee notes that this
rocket fuel is both more energetic than hydrogen fuels and is
environmentally friendly. The committee is concerned, however,
that the research and development test infrastructure is
inadequate to validate the performance of new high-energy
propulsion technologies in a timely manner and believes that
additional funding is needed to reinforce this effort. The
committee believes that such upgrades would also support a wide
range of IPHRPT programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
62203F, and an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62111N for
acceleration of advanced aerospace propulsion initiatives
associated with the IHPTET and IPHRPT programs. The committee
further recommends an increase of $23.7 million in PE 63302F
for new technology insertion into existing large propulsion
test facilities to test new high-energy propulsion systems.
Aircrew laser eye protection
The budget request contained $12.5 million in PE 63231F for
crew systems and personnel protection technology, including
$1.3 million for aircrew laser eye protection.
The committee has consistently supported the Department of
Defense's efforts to enhance aircraft crewmember protection
systems. The committee is aware of theongoing efforts to
develop both laser eye protection in both the near-infrared and visible
light portions of the spectrum. The committee notes the exceptional
future battlefield benefit of providing maximum protection in the
visible spectrum urges the continued development of these initiatives
and encourages them to be viewed as a high priority.
The committee recommends $14.5 million in PE 63231F, an
increase of $2.0 million to address visible spectrum
technologies and development.
Ballistic missile technology
The budget request contained no funds in PE 63311F for the
ballistic missile technology (BMT) program.
The committee notes that both the Navy Trident D-5
submarine launched ballistic missile and the Air Force
Minuteman III land-based intercontinental ballistic missile are
aging, will require continuing efforts to assure their
operational viability, and will eventually need to be replaced.
The committee also notes that current defense planning guidance
directs the Air Force and Navy to apply common technologies and
components to meet requirements for ballistic missile
sustainment and upgrades. The committee is aware that the Navy
and Air Force are actively seeking to avoid duplication of
missile technology development efforts. If adequately funded,
BMT is the Air Force program in which these efforts will be
pursued. The committee also believes that the BMT program could
support a number of other on-going technology developments with
potential to meet important military needs, including the
demonstration of a portable Global Positioning System range
safety system and technologies relevant to the destruction of
hardened and deeply buried targets.
The committee believes these efforts offer significant
contributions to Air Force missile programs and is concerned
with the lack of support for the BMT program. The committee,
therefore, recommends $12.0 million in PE 63311F, an increase
of $12.0 million.
Combat identification
The budget request contained $13.7 million in PE 63203F for
target attack and recognition technology.
The committee notes the importance placed by the military
services on pursuing technological advances to improve rapid
combat identification of friendly and opposing forces, and is
disturbed by recent Air Force funding reductions in this area.
All-weather positive target identification at long stand-off
ranges was specifically cited as a limiting factor during
operations in Kosovo.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63203F for acceleration of combat identification development.
Composite affordability initiative
The budget request contained $48.8 million in PE 62201F for
aerospace flight dynamics, including $1.8 million for concepts
and initiatives to reduce manufacturing cost.
The committee is aware of a number of technologies being
developed under the Composite Affordability Initiative (CAI)
program, including 3D weaving technology. This technology
offers the potential for improved performance and cost
reduction in applications such as future military aircraft
unitized structures and lightweight civil aircraft.
The committee supports the CAI program and recommends an
increase of $1.0 million in PE 62201F for 3D weaving
technology.
Low cost launch technology
The budget request contained $24.3 million in PE 63302F for
development of space and missile rocket propulsion, but
included no funds for low cost launch technology.
The committee is aware of a number of technologies and
concepts that offer the potential to reduce launch costs
dramatically, including Scorpius, which utilizes simplified
processes and technologies to achieve streamlined, low cost
launch and has successfully demonstrated launch capabilities.
The committee believes that continued research in this area is
important to the long-term viability of the U.S. launch
industry and that those technologies that have demonstrated
success deserve priority. The committee believes that the Air
Force, as the service primarily responsible for meeting
national security launch needs, should manage this effort
rather than the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63302F, for low cost launch technologies including Scorpius.
Miniature satellite threat reporting system
The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE 63401F for
advanced spacecraft technology, of which $1.1 million is for
space systems protection.
The miniature satellite threat reporting system (MSTRS)
program is developing technologies for a variety of space
platforms to provide warning against ground-based, broadband
radio frequency threats to satellites and to help protect
against interference, intrusion, jamming, and unauthorized use
of U.S. satellites. Prior year funding has supported
miniaturization of the technology, preparations for a test
flight of MSTRS technology in fiscal year 2001, and a year-long
demonstration of these technologies starting in fiscal year
2004. The committee continues to believe that MSTRS is an
important effort given the increasing reliance of U.S. military
forces on space assets and the potential vulnerability of these
assets to evolving threats.
The committee understands that additional funding is needed
to accommodate the 2001 flight test and to complete
miniaturization. Therefore the committee recommends $102.3
million in PE 63401F, an increase of $5.0 million for further
development of MSTRS technology.
Specialty aerospace metals
The budget request contained $72.8 million for PE 62102F
for applied research and $21.7 million in PE 63112F for
advanced development of materials technologies for aerospace
systems and $53.1 million in PE 78011F for the Air Force's
manufacturing technology program.
The committee notes the continuing need for advances in
special aerospace metals and metal alloys for aircraft and
space vehicle structures, propulsion, components, and weapon
systems. Both the Navy and the Air Force are seeking access to
materials that are lightweight, high strength, high
performance, and capable of withstanding the stressing
environments that are experienced by aerospace systems, and for
the development and optimization of manufacturing processes for
these materials.
The committee recommends increases of $5.25 million in PE
62102F, $5.25 million in PE 63112F, and $4.5 million in PE
78011F to establish an integrated program for the development
and demonstration of special aerospace materials and materials
manufacturing processes, and encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to establish a continuing program for special
aerospace metals and alloys as an integral part of the Air
Force's science and technology and manufacturing technology
programs. The committee requests the Secretary to assess Air
Force requirements for advanced special aerospace metals and
alloys and to report to the congressional defense committees on
the Air Force's plan for meeting those requirements with the
submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Upper atmospheric and astronomical research
The budget request contained $206.1 million in PE 61102F
for Air Force basic research, but included no funding for
proposed enhancements to upper atmospheric and astronomical
research activities.
The committee understands that completion and testing of a
proposed thirty-six reflector telescope would support Air Force
relevant space research and efforts to increase fundamental
understanding of the upper atmosphere. The committee supports
this effort and recommends $209.1 million in PE 61102F, an
increase of $3.0 million for upper atmospheric and astronomical
research.
Advanced message-oriented data security module (AMODSM)
The budget request contained $12.6 million in PE 64735F for
combat training range development but included no funds to
integrate AMODSM units in the Nellis Air Combat Training System
(NACTS) or the Tyndall Range Expansion (TRE). Additionally, the
budget request contained $398.5 million for in the procurement
miscellaneous production charges and $26.0 million for combat
training ranges but included no funds for procurement of AMODSM
units.
Both the NACTS and the TRE are used to train aircrews for
combat and are configured with instrumentation to determine
aerial combat outcomes. AMODSM units provide encrypted fly-out
information for the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile
(AMRAAM), the primary beyond-visual-range air-to-air weapon for
Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps fighter and attack aircraft,
and enable aircrews to determine AMRAAM training mission
results at the NACTS and TRE. The committee believes that
AMOSMunits are required for training at the NACTS and TRE and
recommended an increase for this purpose in its report on H.R. 1401 (H.
Rept. 106-162) for fiscal year 2000.
To complete the AMODSM unit integration effort on the NACTS
and TRE, the committee recommends $16.6 million in PE 64735F,
an increase of $4.0 million. Additionally, the committee
recommends $399.5 million in miscellaneous production charges,
an increase of $1.0 million, to begin procurement of AMODSM
units for aircraft installation; and $27.0 million for combat
training ranges, an increase of $1.0 million, for procurement
of ground-based AMODSM equipment at the NACTS and TRE. The
committee expects these additional funds to be expeditiously
obligated in order to achieve AMODSM operational capability at
the earliest possible date.
B-1B link 16 data link
The budget request contained $168.1 million in PE 64226F
for B-1B bomber modernization but included no funds for B-1B
Link 16 connectivity.
The committee believes that upgraded data links are needed
for the B-1B that can provide real-time information to B-1B
flight crews to improve their situational and threat awareness
and their ability to plan and execute missions. The committee
notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified the B-1B
Link 16 data link as one of his unfunded priorities for fiscal
year 2001.
Therefore, the committee recommends $178.1 million in PE
64226F, an increase of $10.0 million for the B-1B Link 16 data
link.
B-2 upgrades
The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 64240F for
continued development of technologies to enhance the
capabilities of the B-2 bomber.
The committee continues to accept the conclusion of the
1998 Long Range Air Power panel that additional investments are
required for the B-2 to reach its full operational potential.
The committee notes that the Air Force has identified a number
of technologies that would enhance B-2 capabilities, including
development of a bomb rack assembly with communications
interfaces, development of a 500-pound variant of the Joint
Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), improvements in B-2
connectivity, and upgrades of B-2 data displays. Development of
the smart bomb rack and the smaller JDAM will improve the B-2's
operational flexibility by allowing it to carry larger payloads
of all-weather near-precision munitions. The committee notes
that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified development of
the smart bomb rack assembly as an unfunded requirement in
fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of $56.0 million
for development of the smart bomb rack assembly for the B-2
bomber.
The committee notes the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) added funds for Link
16 integration with the B-2. The committee notes that this
datalink in conjunction with a center instrument display (CID)
capable of augmenting the current display system will enhance
the situational awareness of B-2 aircrews and B-2 mission
effectiveness. Therefore, the committee also recommends an
increase of $38.0 million for Link 16 integration and
development of the CID.
In total, the committee recommends $142.3 million in PE
64240F, an increase of $94.0 million for B-2 upgrades.
B-52 modified miniature receive terminals configuration
The budget request contained $15.3 million in PE 33131F for
research and development on the minimum essential emergency
communications network (MEECN), of which $2.7 million was for
improvements for aircraft very low frequency/low frequency
(VLF/LF) communications.
The committee notes that B-52 bombers have not been
equipped with modified VLF/LF miniature receive terminals
(MMRT) that provide high data rate capability and that
modification of existing miniature receive terminals has been
directed by the Joint Staff. This capability is critical for
timely reception of emergency action messages by nuclear-
capable bombers.
The committee recommends $20.3 million in PE 33131F, an
increase of $5.0 million to modify the B-52 miniature receive
terminals to the MMRT configuration with high data rate
capabilities.
Defense reconnaissance support program
The budget requested contained $45.1 million in PE 35159F
for various projects within the defense reconnaissance support
program (DSRP).
The committee recommends $38.0 million in PE35159F, a
decrease of $7.1 million. This reduction is taken without
prejudice.
Discoverer II
The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE63401F,
including $54.2 million for Discoverer II, and $182.2 million
in PE 63762E for sensor and guidance technology, including
$40.1 million for Discoverer II. The request also contained
additional funding in a classified program element for the
design and development of the Discoverer II space-based moving
target indicator (MTI) demonstration project.
The committee remains supportive of the Discoverer II
demonstration and believes that space-based radar has the
potential to meet identified military requirements. However,
the committee believes that the capabilities promised by space-
based radar are valuable only if the capability is developed
and deployed at affordable cost, and that cost discipline will
be key to success for Discover II. The committee also notes
that the Department of Defense has yet to provide a concept of
operations that achieves synergies between space and airborne
MTI assets and other national and tactical sensor assets, and
believes that the ultimate value of the program cannot be
determined without this definition.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees, by February 15, 2001 describing the
Discoverer II concept of operations as defined, as of that date
and a firm cost estimate for the two-satellite demonstration
program that will provide a benchmark by which the committees
can judge the cost of the technologies.
Eagle vision
The budget request included no funds to improve the Eagle
Vision imagery ground station's capability to receive and
process new commercial imagery sources.
The committee notes the recent successful launch and
initial operations of the Ikonos II commercial imagery
satellite. The committee also notes that two other U.S.
commercial companies are about to launch their own high-
resolution imagery satellites. Currently, the Eagle Vision
ground station is designed to receive and process relatively
low-resolution imagery from Canadian and French commercial
satellites. It is, however, not able to process imagery from
the higher resolution U.S. systems that are either in or soon
to be in orbit.
Therefore, the committee recommends $4.5 million in PE
27277F, an increase of $4.5 million, for the purpose of
integrating into the Eagle Vision ground stations a receive and
processing functionality necessary to exploit current and
future U.S. commercial satellite imaging systems.
Electronic warfare development
The budget request contained $58.2 million in PE 64270F for
electronic warfare (EW) development, but included no funds for
the PLAID technology program. The budget request also included
$4.0 million for the miniature air-launched decoy (MALD)
program, which, the committee notes, only partially funds its
transition from the advanced concept technology demonstration
(ACTD) to the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD)
phase.
The PLAID technology program will enhance aircrew
situational awareness by providing accurate ground emitter
location and identification. The improved situational awareness
resulting from this technology will help combat pilots to
effectively avoid radar-guided surface-to-air missiles. In its
report on H.R. 1401 (H.Rept. 106-162) for fiscal year 2000, the
committee recommended an increase of $13.7 million for PLAID,
and understands that recent test reports indicate that PLAID
technology has been remarkably successful. Further, the
committee notes that PLAID technology has been identified as
critical for the joint strike fighter, unmanned aerial
vehicles, and suppression of enemy air defense platforms.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $17.7
million, to continue the PLAID technology development.
The MALD is a low-cost decoy intended to stimulate enemy
integrated air defense systems to enable pilots to either avoid
or target these systems. The committee understands that the Air
Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center recently evaluated
the MALD and found it to be potentially both operationally
effective and suitable with tactically significant capabilities
for the Air Force. Encouraged by these results, the committee
believes that the MALD should complete its ACTD effort and
transition to EMD in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to increase
the MALD's suitability for operational use.
In total, the committee recommends $82.9 million, an
increase of $24.7 million, for EW development.
Extended range cruise missile (ERCM)
The budget request contained no funds for either the
conventional air-launched cruise missile (CALCM) or for the
ERCM, a proposed replacement for this weapon.
The committee recalls that as a result of CALCM combat
expenditures between 1991 and 1999 that substantially reduced
inventory, Congress required the Secretary of the Air Force to
report on CALCM replacement options in Section 132 of the
National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-
65). The committee notes that this report detailed the Air
Force's need for an ERCM that would meet the requirement to
quickly increase the inventory of cruise missiles and provide
an extended-range missile capability to protect the Air Force's
aging bomber force. The committee also notes that the Air Force
Chief of Staff has included the start of an ERCM program among
his top 20 unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $86.1 million in PE
64XXXF to begin an ERCM program and expects the Department of
the Air Force to both employ fair and open competitive
practices and to fund fully a 618-unit program in its fiscal
year 2002 and future years defense program. If the Department
of the Air Force proposes to pursue an acquisition strategy
using other than full and open competition, the Secretary of
the Air Force shall inform the congressional defense committees
the rationale and justification therefore at least 30 days
prior to obligating any funds.
Additionally, the committee understands that the currently
planned ERCM program does not include missiles configured with
a penetration warhead. If the Department of the Air Force
subsequently opts to include a penetration warhead as part of
the ERCM program, the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering shall report to the congressional defense
committees, 30 days prior to the obligation of funds for such a
warhead, his independent assessment of penetration warhead
improvements necessary for the ERCM to defeat the full spectrum
of those targets identified by a Joint Requirements Oversight
Council-approved requirement.
Global hawk unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request included $109.2 million in PE 35205F for
endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), including $103.2
million for continued development of the Global Hawk UAV.
The committee supports the Global Hawk and believes that it
has the potential for providing intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance support to military customers, complementing the
current U-2 operations.
The committee notes that due to a crash of the one air
vehicle, and a runway accident of another, there are no
electro-optic/infra-red (EO/IR) sensors to continue test and
evaluation of the UAV. The committee believes it is important
to procure sensor sets to replace those lost to the accidents.
Further, the committee is aware of unobligated and unexpended
funding from prior year funds provided for endurance UAV that
could be used to purchase these sensors and continue the Global
Hawk engineering and development in fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, the committee recommends $109.2 million in PE
35205F for endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), of which
$12.0 million is for the purchase of two EO/IR sensors for the
Global Hawk aircraft.
Hyperspectral imagery system
The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 27247F for
Air Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities
(TENCAP) projects.
The committee recalls Congress provided additional funding
in fiscal year 2000 for continuing development of a hyper-
spectral sensor for application on Navy P-3 and Air Force
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). The committee is aware that
this initiative has resulted in a joint effort to integrate and
demonstrate a real-time hyper-spectral sensor on a Predator
UAV. The committee notes that no funding was provided in the
budget request to continue this effort through demonstration.
The committee believes that a hyper-spectral sensor will
significantly mitigate the problems of detecting and targeting
camouflaged targets that has hampered aerial targeting in past
operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends $13.8 million in PE
27247F, an increase of $4.0 million to continue this
demonstration with the goal of producing an operational real-
time hyper-spectral sensing system on UAVs and other
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.
Integrated broadcast service
The budget request included $24.5 million in PE 63850F for
development of the Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS). The
request also included $15.1 million in operation and
maintenance, Navy, for operating the legacy systems, including
the Tactical Information Broadcast Service (TIBS), the TRAP
Data Dissemination System (TDDS), the Tactical Reconnaissance
Information Exchange System (TRIXS), the Tactical Digital
Information Exchange System (TADIXS-B) and the Near-real-time
Dissemination (NRTD) System.
The committee has been very supportive of the IBS program
since its inception in fiscal year 1995. IBS was to result in a
coordinated broadcast capability and the termination of the
legacy systems, providing better support to real-time users of
intelligence. This goal clearly has not been achieved, and the
committee is extremely disappointed with the Department's
progress toward IBS. The original program schedule provided for
the legacy systems to be integrated into an initial IBS
functionality in the 2000 time frame. The current schedule now
shows such a capability in 2007. Further, there has been no
progress in terminating any or all of the legacy systems. In
fact, some of the legacy systems have actually been modified to
increase their capabilities. It is clear that the program
managers have had no intention of terminating these systems. In
preparation of the fiscal year 2001 budget markup, the
committee drafted legislation to direct the Department to
terminate all legacy broadcast systems on a date certain.
However, the committee decided to rescind the provision,
allowing the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control,
Communications and Intelligence) (ASD(C3I)) to be responsible
for commitments to the Congress to move forward with IBS.
The committee notes that the IBS executive agent has been
moved from the Navy to the Air Force. However, the budget
request for IBS had been submitted before this change.
Therefore, all operation and maintenance funding should be
transferred to the Air Force in accordance with the transfer of
management responsibility.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
tentatively decided to proceed with IBS in a phased spiral-
development approach beginning with an ``increment one'' that
uses the current, or slightly modified, TIBS message set as the
baseline. This will allow the Department to baseline the IBS
program using an existing program, and improve on it, rather
than begin wholly anew. The committee supports this approach
and expects the ASD(C3I) personally will oversee its progress
and the most expedient retirement of all other legacy systems.
Finally, the IBS contract was terminated for non-
performance prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2000. The
committee understands that, accordingly, there are funds
available from previous congressional appropriations. Further,
the committee believes the current request for program office
personnel and funding is far in excess of need. Therefore, the
committee recommends $15.8 million, a decrease of $8.7 million
in PE 63850F for IBS. Further, the committee recommends a
transfer of $15 million from operation and maintenance, Navy,
to operation and maintenance, Air Force.
Joint ejection seat program
The budget request contained $14.8 million in PE 64706F for
life support systems, including $10.9 million for ejection seat
development, but included no funds for standardized cockpit and
crew seats.
The committee notes the serious shortage of ejection seat
manufacturers available to meet U.S. aircraft ejection seat
requirements and fully supports the Joint Ejection Seat Program
(JESP). The goal of this joint program is to distribute
equally, JESP funds among viable ejection seat producers to
enable them to compete for Air Force and Navy requirements,
including the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. However, the
committee is aware that ejection seat development efforts are
currently being conducted, that assists only one of the
potential competitors in preparing to meet these requirements.
Although well intentioned, these ongoing projects result in
unfairly disadvantaging other potential competitors during this
highly sensitive period immediately prior to selection of the
ejection seat producer for the JSF. The committee notes that
the Department of Defense is making every effort to ensure that
the JSF program is closely monitored and that the enormous
implications to the fighter aircraft industrial base are
completely understood and taken into account prior to the
planned ``winner take all'' selection for development and
production of JSF. However, the committee is concerned that
similar precautions are not in place to prevent a potential
imbalance to the competitive playing field for selection of the
JSF ejection seat. In order to protect the JSF program from
potentially damaging program delays due to unfair competition
claims, the committee recommends that no funds other than that
included in the JESP be allowed for ejection seat development
efforts involving producers identified as potential JSF
ejection seat competitors .
Thus, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.9 million
in PE 64706F for all Air Force ejection seat development
efforts. The committee directs the Secretary ofDefense to
conduct a thorough assessment of all development work for fighter
aircraft ejection seats within the Department to ensure that no funding
is provided which unfairly benefits any potential competitor prior to a
full and open competitive selection for the ejection seat for JSF. The
Secretary shall provide the results of this assessment to the
congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year
2002 budget request.
The committee is also aware of Air Force efforts previously
supported in PE 64706F to develop standardized cockpit and crew
seats to protect aircrew members and passengers against crash
loads up to 1.6 times the force of gravity. The committee notes
that these efforts are separate from ejection seat development
and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 64706F for
continued development and testing of standardized cockpit and
crew seats.
Joint strike fighter
The budget request contained $856.6 million for the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) program, including $129.5 million in PE
63800F, $299.5 million in PE 64800F, $131.6 million in PE
63800N, and $296.0 million in PE 64800N.
The committee notes that $261.1 million of the total funds
requested for JSF are intended to support completion of the
demonstration and validation phase of the program and a
``winner take all'' selection of one of two competing
approaches for entry into engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD). The remaining $595.5 million will support
award of an EMD contract to the winning competitor.
The committee understands that the JSF program is
attempting to integrate a significant number of challenging new
technologies into one joint service multi-purpose aircraft for
the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, and United Kingdom to
replace a number of aging fighter and attack aircraft fleets.
The committee believes that, in light of the program's scope
and technological advances, the Secretary of Defense should
take all necessary measures to ensure that the JSF program's
critical technologies are sufficiently mature before entry into
the EMD phase. Consequently, the committee recommends a
provision (Section 213) that would limit the JSF program's
approval to proceed beyond the demonstration and validation
phase until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the
congressional defense committees that the technological
maturity of the JSF program's key technologies is sufficient to
warrant its entry into EMD stage.
The Committee continues to express concern for the
stability of the fighter aircraft industrial base and notes
that the JSF program represents the only new fighter aircraft
acquisition program proposed by the Department of Defense
during the next three decades. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a provision (Section 141) that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress providing
the results of a study of production alternatives for the JSF
and the effects on the tactical fighter aircraft industrial
base of each alternative considered.
Additionally, while the Department is currently reviewing
the planned JSF ``winner take all'' strategy to ensure that
aircraft industrial base concerns are addressed, the committee
notes that no specific concern has been stated with respect to
the future stability of the fighter aircraft engine industrial
base. The committee supports continuation of the JSF alternate
engine program (AEP) as directed in section 211 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105-85)
and recommends that the Department specifically address
measures to ensure the health of the fighter aircraft engine
industrial base in any proposed restructure of the acquisition
program for JSF.
The committee also notes that the JSF AEP, as currently
funded, will not be capable of completing development and
flight qualification of the alternate engine until after award
of lot five of the JSF production program. In order to reduce
risk to JSF production and aircraft fielding, the Committee
supports acceleration of AEP development to ensure that the
alternative engine completes configuration compatibility for
the JSF airframe.
The committee recommends $299.5 million in PE 64800F,
$131.6 million in PE 63800N, and $296.0 million in PE 64800N,
the requested amounts. The committee also recommends $144.5
million in PE 63800F, an increase of $15.0 million, to
accelerate the JSF AEP.
Military strategic and tactical relay (MILSTAR)
The budget request contained $236.8 million in PE 64479F
for development of the Military Strategic and Tactical Relay
(MILSTAR) communications satellite, including $14.2 million for
the automated communications management.
The committee understands that demand for military
satellite communications continues to rise and that the
efficient use of military satellite communications resources
remains a priority. The committee believes that web-based
satellite communications management technologies that utilize
the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, such as the
Satellite Planning Information Network (SPIN), have the
potential to greatly expand flexibility in the use of satellite
communications, improve insight into system status, balance
communications loads, and provide superior connectivity during
wartime or humanitarian operations. The committee believes that
the use of common standards will allow such efforts to improve
utilization of legacy systems, such as MILSTAR, as well the
effectiveness of next generation communications satellites,
including the Advanced Extremely High Frequency system.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million
in PE 64479F for development of new technologies, such as SPIN,
to improve the automated management and command and control of
communications satellites.
The committee notes that the MILSTAR budget request
represents an $11.0 million increase over the level forecast in
the fiscal year 2000 budget submission. Although this increase
is intended to fund engineering change orders, the committee
does not believe that adequate justification has been provided
for the full increase requested. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $4.0 million in PE 64479F.
Overall, the committee recommends $237.8 million in PE
64479F, an increase of $1.0 million.
Mobile approach control system
The budget request contained $15.9M in PE 35114F for
development of the Mobile Approach Control System (MACS).
MACS is the Air Force replacement for the Air National
Guard MPN-14K and Active Force TPN-19 mobile and tactical
approach control facilities. These facilities enable
expeditionary operations by providing safe launch and recovery
for combat air operations in all weather conditions at deployed
airfields. These facilities are also the primary means by which
the Air National Guard trains its force of air traffic
controllers and maintenance personnel to meet their wartime
commitments.
The committee is aware of the deplorable condition of the
current systems and that the schedule for the program to
replace these systems is unacceptably late. Several, if not
all, Air National Guard and Active units with the current
antiquated equipment will be forced to discontinue operations
over the next several years until replacement equipment is in
place. The committee is also aware that the current MACS
acquisition strategy, a combination of Air Force and Navy
acquisition efforts, will place the first operational units
into service in 2004. The committee is concerned with the
operationally unacceptable position this imposes on the Air
National Guard forces and the limitations placed on their
ability to train and operate.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, as lead service for the MACS program, to restructure its
MACS acquisition strategy to initiate low-rate initial
production (LRIP) at the earliest opportunity, but not later
than fiscal year 2002, and to include necessary funds to
support LRIP and appropriate modifications in the fiscal year
2002 and beyond budget requests.
Multi-link antenna system
The budget request contained no funding in PE 35207F for
manned reconnaissance systems including exploitation
technologies for RC-135 aircraft.
The Congress provided funds for development and evaluation
of the Multi-function, self-aligned gate (MSAG) active array
antenna technology on the RC-135 aircraft in fiscal year 2000.
The conferees were convinced that the MSAG technology, now
called Multi-link Active System (MLAS) has the potential for
satisfying several RC-135 antenna deficiencies, and also has
the potential for reducing the size and number of antennas for
many other applications. In fact, the committee is aware that
the Department of Defense has determined that the potential for
this technology merited funding through an advanced concept
technology demonstration.
The committee is aware that the budget request was
insufficient to complete the fabrication, installation and
evaluation of an MLAS antenna on an RC-135. Therefore, the
committee recommends $2.0 million in PE35207F for this purpose.
Satellite control network
The budget request contained $58.6 million in PE 35110F for
satellite control network research and development, and $39.1
million for satellite control network procurement.
The satellite control network is a global system of control
centers, remote tracking stations, and communications required
to control satellites in orbit. The committee understands that
telemetry and command data rates need to be improved and
supports the modernization of the current system, which is
inefficient and increasingly difficult tosupport. The committee
believes that current technology can meet these improvement needs, but
is concerned, however, that the current Air Force program fails to
adequately leverage opportunities offered by commercial technology to
reduce the cost of modernizing and operating the network.
The committee recommends the requested amount for PE 35110F
and directs that $1.5 million shall be available to the Space
Battlelab to evaluate the utility of commercial antennae
networks for satellite control. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide to the congressional
defense committee, by February 15, 2001, a report on satellite
control network modernization, including possible
architectures, the command and control interface between the
satellite control network and satellite operations centers, the
roles that commercial technology and services might play, a
description of commercial technology demonstrations that would
be useful, and operational, manpower, cost and schedule
implications associated with the architectures.
Small smart munitions
The budget request contained $1.2 million in PE 64618F for
continued development of the joint direct attack munition
(JDAM) but included no funds for the 500-pound variant of the
JDAM. The budget request also contained $8.9 million in PE
64602F for Air Force armament development, but included no
funds for miniaturized munitions capability (MMC).
The committee is supportive of Department of Defense
efforts to increase future weapons load-outs and combat
effectiveness for bomber and other ground attack aircraft. The
committee believes that development of a 500-pound JDAM variant
and a 250-pound MMC are important in this regard.
The committee notes that the B-2 bomber, when deployed with
a smart bomb rack assembly, will be able to carry up to 80 500-
pound JDAMs for near-precision delivery against individual
targets or target sets and that the Air Force Chief of Staff
has identified development of the 500-pound JDAM as an unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001. The committee believes that
this development should proceed rapidly and will serve as a
strong foundation for follow-on MMC technologies. Therefore,
the committee recommends $26.2 million in PE 64618F, an
increase of $25.0 million for development of the 500-pound
JDAM.
The committee notes that the February 2000 interim report
of the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of the Navy on
MMC, prepared in response to a requirement in the committee
report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-62), did not include
consideration of development of a 250-pound MMC. However, the
committee has been informed that there are relatively mature
MMC technologies which offer considerable potential capability
against both fixed and mobile targets and can support an
initial operational capability (IOC) sooner than fiscal year
2007, the currently planned date. Accordingly, the committee
recommends $23.9 million in PE 64602F, an increase of $15.0
million to accelerate development of a 250-pound MMC variant.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and
the Secretary of the Navy to submit a final report on the MMC
analysis of alternatives to the congressional defense
committees with the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The report
shall include a review of all 26 government and industry MMC
concepts noted in the interim report, specific analysis of the
technical feasibility of a future-250 pound MMC variant, and
funding requirements associated with a fiscal year 2007 IOC as
well as accelerated IOCs for 250-pound MMC variants.
Space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS-High)
The budget request contained $569.2 million in PE 64441F
for engineering and manufacturing development of the space-
based infrared system-high (SBIRS-High) program, including
$162.1 million for geosynchronous SBIRS-High satellites.
The committee notes that the ground control segment to
support the SBIRS-High satellites has been delayed due to
difficulty in developing and integrating the computer codes
needed to manage the data flow from both SBIRS-High and the
Defense Satellite Program early warning satellites. While
concerned with these delays, the committee has been informed
that the ground control segment will be operational in time to
support the scheduled launch of the first SBIRS-High satellite
into a highly elliptical orbit in fiscal year 2001. The
committee further understands that the delays, while delaying
the development of follow-on upgrades of the ground control
segment, will not impact the scheduled fiscal year 2004 launch
of the first geosynchronous SBIRS-High satellite.
The committee notes that SBIRS-High capabilities will be
essential to achieving the required levels of confidence in the
performance of the national missile defense system and
continues to support the deployment of SBIRS-High satellites
without delay. Consequently, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide written notification to the
congressional defense committees of any proposed change to the
currently established milestones for the SBIRS-High program
prior to approval of those changes.
The committee recommends $569.2 million for SBIRS-High.
Space-based infrared system-low (SBIRS-Low)
The budget request contained $241.0 million in PE 64442F
for research and development on the space-based infrared
system-low (SBIRS-Low) system.
The committee notes that Section 231 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) establishes ballistic missile defense as the primary
mission of SBIRS-Low and that SBIRS-Low will be critical to
achieving advanced national missile defense (NMD) and theater
missile defense (TMD) capabilities.
The committee further notes that Section 231 also directs
that the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO) will have authority to approve or disapprove any changes
to the baseline SBIRS-Low schedule, budget and system level
technical requirements. The committee has been informed that
BMDO and the NMD lead system integrator have not been
sufficiently consulted with by the Air Force and the SBIRS
contractor to assure that missile defense requirements are
effectively reflected in the SBIRS Low development process. The
committee understands that the Secretary of the Air Force
acknowledges these concerns and has testified that he
recommends moving SBIRS-Low program management from the Air
Force to BMDO. Senior BMDO officials have confirmed to the
committee that BMDO management would ensure appropriate
interaction between the NMD and SBIRS-Low programs. Therefore,
the committee recommends a provision (section 212) that would
transfer management authority for the SBIRS-Low program from
the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
The committee concurs with views expressed by senior DOD
officials that the primary SBIRS Low mission is ballistic
missile defense. The committee, however, believes that the
director of BMDO, in coordination with other defense agencies,
should afford appropriate priority to ancillary SBIRS Low
requirements in battlespace characterization and technical
intelligence, to the extent that they do not increase technical
or schedule risk to the primary SBIRS Low mission. The
committee believes that the intelligence community and other
organizations that seek to add technical capabilities to the
SBIRS Low system to meet those ancillary requirements must
provide the resources needed to do so.
Consistent with the transfer of ABL management authority,
the committee recommends no funds in PE 64442F, a decrease of
$241.0 million and an increase of $241.0 million in PE 63871C,
the national missile defense program. The committee understands
that the Air Force would remain the executive agent for the
SBIRS-Low development program and would retain operational
control of the system when deployed.
Spacelift range system
The budget request contained $53.7 million in PE 35182F for
research and development for the spacelift range system.
The Air Force spacelift range system program funds
modernization for the Eastern Range at Cape Canaveral, Florida,
and the Western Range at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
This is accomplished through the Range Standardization and
Automation (RSA) project, which funds long-term upgrades, and
the Space Lift Range System contract, which supports short-term
system integration and engineering and recapitalization
priorities.
The Air Force continues to subsidize heavily the commercial
launch industry at the Eastern and Western Ranges, even though
commercial launches and other government launches now far
outnumber Air Force launches. The subsidy results from Air
Force funding of the modernization, management, and operation
of the launch ranges, while recovering only about five percent
of direct incremental costs and none of the indirect support
costs of a commercial launch.
The committee believes that the funding burden of
modernizing, managing and operating the spacelift ranges should
be shared more equitably by the range users. Such an
arrangement would more accurately reflect the costs and
benefits to each of the users and allow the Air Force to meet
its legitimate priorities more fully. At the same time, the
committee recognizes that the Air Force must be responsible for
sustaining the ranges until satisfactory alternative funding
and management arrangements that meet civil, national security
and commercial requirements can be established.
The committee notes that the February 2000 report of the
interagency working group on ``The Future Management and Use of
the U.S. Space Launch Bases and Ranges'' supports maximizing
the use of ``non-federal'' funding sources ``for the continued
maintenance and modernization'' of the launch bases and ranges.
The report also points to restrictions imposed by in the
Commercial Space Launch Act (Public Law 98-575) that limit
reimbursement to the Air Force for costs incurred in supporting
commercial launch activities and the Air Force ability to
accept privately financed range improvements. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, with appropriate
consultation with other federal and state officials and private
industry, to identify the legal impediments to such non-federal
funding of range improvements and maintenance, and the changes
required to eliminate these impediments. The Secretary shall
submit a report on his findings to the House Committee on Armed
Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services by January
15, 2001.
The committee understands that the flight termination
system in use at both the Vandenberg Air Force Base and Cape
Canaveral test ranges is obsolescent, expensive to maintain,
unreliable, subject to unintentional signal interference during
flight missions, and unable to preclude inadvertent flight
termination. The committee recommends an increase of $700,000
in PE 35182F to initiate a study for a new flight termination
system.
The committee also endorses an effort to develop a space
launch operations complex at the Vandenberg test range to
improve space launch operations through improved communications
and better integration of launch system technologies. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 35182F
for this purpose. The committee expects that this effort will
become a public-private partnership in the future.
Overall, the committee recommends $59.9 million in PE
35182F, an increase of $6.2 million for the spacelift range
system.
U-2 senior year electro-optic system polarimetry
The budget request included $27.5 million in PE 35202F for
Dragon U-2 reconnaissance aircraft.
The committee notes that the use of a polarization
technique on the U-2 Senior Year Electro-optic System (SYERS)
will provide the ability to discern military targets hidden
under camouflage or concealed in dense vegetation. The
committee believes the SYERS polarization processor will
provide a force multiplying effect.
Therefore, the committee recommends $31.5 million in PE
35202F, an increase of $4.0 million for this purpose.
Defense Wide RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $10,238.2 million for Defense
Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$11,077.8 million, an increase of $839.5 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000
Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are
discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced sensor applications program
The budget request contained $15.5 million in PE 63714D8Z
for the advanced sensor applications program.
The committee recommends $25.0 million in PE 63714D8Z, an
increase of $9.5 million for the program. Details of the
recommendations are contained in the classified annex.
Ballistic missile defense (BMD)
The budget request contained $4,490.6 million for the
programs of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO),
of which $3,737.6 was for research and development, $444.0 was
for procurement, and $103.5 million was for military
construction.
The committee notes a succession of BMD test successes that
provides considerable confidence that hit-to-kill technology is
fundamentally sound. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3),
Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and National
Missile Defense programs all conducted highly successful tests
that demonstrated substantial degrees of system maturity and
the potential for more rapid progress.
The committee also notes that the BMDO budget request
represents a substantial increase compared over the fiscal year
2000 request and the funding level anticipated for fiscal year
2001 in last year's budget request. The committee is gratified
that this request would more fully fund ballistic missile
requirements than in the past. The committee believes that the
urgent need to meet substantial and growing ballistic missile
threats and demonstrated technical progress fully justifies
these increases.
However, the committee remains deeply concerned about the
pace and direction of BMD programs on a number of grounds:
(1) The committee notes that the Director of BMDO
identified $1.0 billion in additional funding for BMD programs
for fiscal year 2001 that would reduce risk, speed deployment
schedules, and provide greater capability. The committee
continues to believe that BMD programs remain seriously
underfunded.
(2) Major BMD programs such as Navy Theater Wide and THAAD
are not adequately funded throughout the future years defense
program to achieve timely operational capability.
(3) Funding for advanced BMD technologies has declined
dramatically to a level that cannot support next generation BMD
systems. The committee believes that such funding is critical
to prevent the obsolescence of systems now being developed and
to meet more demanding threats in the future.
(4) The commitment to BMD by the services to service-funded
BMD programs remains highly suspect. The committee notes that
the Air Force budget request would reduce funding for the
Airborne Laser by 50 percent over the future years defense
program.
(5) Deployed missile defenses are not adequate to meet
identified threats. The missile threat from North Korea is
particularly stressing for deployed U.S. systems.
(6) Deployment timelines for key systems may fail to meet
expected threats, particularly new ballistic missile
developments in North Korea and Iran.
(7) The President has not committed to deployment of NMD,
in spite of the fact that the Secretary of Defense has stated
that the threat justifies such a deployment.
The committee believes that ballistic missile defense
remains a very high priority and urges the Department of
Defense to commit the funds needed to achieving timely
deployment of systems that will defeat current and future
ballistic missile threats.
Overall, the committee recommends $5,245.8 million for BMDO
including an increase of $283.2 million and transfers of $472.0
million.
Advanced technology development
The budget request contained $93.2 million in PE 63173C for
advanced ballistic missile defense technologies. The committee
remains concerned that the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) technology efforts are insufficiently
funded to keep pace with expected threats, and strongly
recommends that the Director of BMDO identify funds throughout
the future year defense program to support a technology
development effort capable of doing so.
The budget request included $19.4 million in project 1281
for atmospheric interceptor technology (AIT). The AIT program
develops advanced interceptor technologies to support the
theater high-altitude area defense (THAAD), Navy theater wide
(NTW), and Patriot advanced capability-3 configuration 3 (PAC-
3) missile defense systems. This effort is needed to keep pace
with rapidly evolving ballistic missile threats. The committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million in project 1281 for
this effort. The budget request also included $18.9 million in
project 1282 for exoatmospheric interceptor technology (EIT).
This effort is key to keeping pace with evolving long-range
missile threats. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in project 1282 for development of advanced sensors
that will enhance NMD, NTW, and THAAD capabilities.
The committee notes that the Director of BMDO identified
funding to develop robust adaptive algorithms needed to counter
evolving and off-nominal ballistic missile threats as an
unfunded priority. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million to initiate this effort.
The committee recommends the $122.2 million in PE 63173C,
an increase of $29.0 million for advanced technology
development.
Liquid surrogate target
The budget request contained $270.7 million in PE 63874C
ballistic missile defense (BMD) technical operations, including
$49.1 million was for BMD targets, but contained no funds for
liquid surrogate targets.
The committee notes that many of the operational targets
for the airborne laser (ABL) will be liquid-fueled theater
ballistic missiles and the ABL program has a validated
requirement for a liquid surrogate target. The committee also
understands that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO) has concluded that development of a liquid surrogate
target will be required to support other BMD programs by
emulating threat missiles in their boost and ascent phases.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million in PE 63874C for the development of a liquid surrogate
target.
National missile defense (NMD)
The budget request contained $1,740.2 million in PE 63871C
for national missile defense research and development, $74.5
million for NMD procurement, and $101.6 million for NMD
military construction.
The committee notes that the Director of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) provided an accounting of
unfunded BMDO priorities that included additional NMD risk
reduction activities. The committee continues to believe that
NMD remains one of the highest defense priorities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $ 85.0
million in PE 63871C for additional kill vehicle emulators to
reduce risk during integration and assembly of kill vehicles,
in-flight interceptor communications system modem development
to reduce schedule risk, site activation teams to provide
required support at potential deployment sites, an additional
target booster to reduce schedule risk in the event of target
problems, and additional development of the test and training
evaluation center to enhance system test and evaluation
capabilities. To further reduce risk, the committee also
encourages the Director of BMDO to maximize the use of test
launches of ballistic missiles to analyze and advance the NMD
battle management, command, control, and communications system.
The committee notes that BMDO has planned an evolutionary
deployment of NMD capabilities to address long-range missile
threats. The committee believes that a new radar technology
proposal may offer improved capabilities to discriminate
warheads from sophisticated offensive countermeasures that may
be deployed in the future. The committee recommends that the
director of BMDO fully assess future NMD radar requirements;
all radar technologies and architectures relevant to the NMD
program beyond fiscal year 2005; and technical risk, schedule
and cost implications associated with those technologies and
architectures. The committee also recommends that the director
of BMDO assure the use of all appropriate competitive
procedures in the development and acquisition of NMD radars.
The committee directs the director of BMDO, if he determines
that the development and acquisition of NMD radars should not
be competed, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees detailing the justification for that determination
not later than 30 days prior to the proposed initiation of any
noncompetitive effort.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee also
recommends that the budget request for the space-based infrared
system--low (SBIRS Low), $241.0 million, be transferred from PE
64442F to PE 63871C. The committee believes that this transfer
will provide needed focus and management efficiencies that will
allow more rapid maturation of both SBIRS Low and NMD
capabilities. Overall, the Committee recommends $2,066.3
million in PE 63871C for NMD research and development. The
committee also recommends $74.5 million for NMD procurement and
$101.6 million for NMD military construction.
Navy theater wide
The budget request contained $382.7 million in PE 63868C
for the Navy theater wide (NTW) missile defense system.
The committee is concerned that the NTW deployment schedule
is both inadequate to meet expected threats and inadequately
funded. The current NTW schedule provides for a four missile
contingency Block I capability by fiscal year 2006, a limited
capability on two dedicated missile defense ships by fiscal
year 2008, and a full Block I capability by 2010. However, the
committee understands that NTW Block I will only defend against
very limited numbers of unsophisticated missile threats.
Further, the committee notes that funding for even this limited
capability is not programmed through the future years defense
plan, and that no timeline has been laid out for development
and deployment of NTW Block II, which will be capable of
defense against larger numbers of more sophisticated threats.
The committee understands that NTW will be tested a number
of times in fiscal year 2001, and that the budget request fully
supports these tests. The committee expects that if these tests
meet with substantial success that funds will be identified and
programmed to provide for rapid development and timely NTW
deployment.
The committee believes that an effort is needed to provide
greater NTW capability earlier than planned and notes the
support of the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization for that research and development on an advanced
technology kill vehicle. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $15.0 million in PE 63868C to support this effort.
The committee also understands that the Navy has considered
an X band high power discriminator and modifications to the
current SPY-1 radar to meet ballistic missile defense radar
needs for NTW. However, the committee believes that a new radar
technology approach may offer improved capabilities in the 2010
timeframe. The committee understands that this new approach
would take advantage of new algorithms and beam steering
technology to achieve improved capabilities to discriminate
warheads from sophisticated offensive countermeasures that may
be deployed in the future.
Therefore, the committee directs the director of BMDO to
assess NTW radar requirements and technologies and
architectures relevant to the NTW program, and provide a report
on his assessment to the congressional defense committees by
February 15, 2001. The report should include consideration of
expected threats, and technical risk, schedule and cost
implications associated with those technologies and
architectures.
The committee also recommends an increase of $10.0 million
in PE 63868C to initiate a demonstration of the alternative
radar approach.
Overall, the committee recommends $407.7 in PE 63868C for
research and development of the Navy theater wide system.
Russian-American cooperative national missile defense
The committee notes that representatives of the government
of Russia have expressed concern that deployment of a U.S.
national missile defense (NMD) would undermine the
effectiveness of the Russian deterrent forces and existing arms
control agreements. The committee is also aware of ongoing
discussions between the U.S. and Russian governments related to
U.S. plans for deployment of an NMD system.
The committee believes that these discussions are important
and that additional confidence building measures are warranted
to assure the Russian government that NMD deployment does not
threaten Russian interests. One such measure could include
discussions and eventual development of a joint U.S.-Russian
national missile defense system that could defend both nations
from a range of missile threats.
The committee encourages the Administration to continue the
discussions with Russia to explore this possibility. The
committee directs the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) to examine this concept and provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by January 15,
2001. The report should include consideration of possible
architectures, technical merits and challenges, and potential
cost, effectiveness, technology transfer risks, and areas of
technical cooperation related to a joint U.S.-Russian national
missile defense effort.
Support technology
The budget request contained $37.7 million in PE 62173C for
ballistic missile defense support technologies.
The committee remains concerned that funding for innovative
ballistic missile technology projects is insufficient to
support Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) future
needs. The committee strongly recommends that the Director of
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to identify
funds throughout the future year defense program sufficient to
support a technology program that hedges against rapidly
evolving missile threats.
The committee also understands that BMDO has identified
wideband gap electronic materials for high speed and high
temperature device operation as a high priority that is
insufficiently funded. The committee notes that significant
progress has been made in the development of these materials
and believes that additional research offers the opportunity
for further progress.
The committee recommends $47.7 million in PE 62173C, an
increase $10.0 million for the continuation of wide-band gap
materials research.
Wide bandwidth information infrastructure
The budget request contained $270.7 million in PE 63874C
for ballistic missile defense technical operations.
The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) is using recent advances in wide
band information technology to enhance operational efficiency
and improve the test infrastructure. BMDO's efforts have linked
geographically dispersed radar and missile hardware-in-the-loop
test facilities to improve the ground testing of theater
missile defense systems and increase the probability of
successful flight tests. The committee believes that the use of
this technology can beexpanded into other critical areas,
including battle management, command, control, communications, and
intelligence.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in PE 63874C to continue the development of a wide
bandwidth information infrastructure for BMDO.
Chemical-biological defense program
The budget request contained $835.8 million for the
chemical biological defense (CBD) program, including $361.9
million in research, development, test and evaluation, and
$473.9 million in procurement. The budget request also
contained $162.1 million in PE 62383E for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency biological warfare applied research
program.
In order to insure an integrated CBD program within the
Department of Defense (DOD), section 1703 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
160) mandated the coordination and integration of all DOD CBD
programs and the funding of these programs in a defense-wide
account, separate from the accounts of the military
departments. The committee notes that funding for the DOD
program has grown significantly from $387.8 million in fiscal
year 1996, and is projected to continue at an average of $876
million per year through fiscal year 2005.
The committee has reviewed the Department's Chemical and
Biological Defense Program Annual Report to Congress, dated
March 2000, and notes that the oversight and management of the
program continue to mature. The report details the considerable
progress made in improving cooperation among the military
departments and the jointness of CBD research, development, and
procurement since the establishment of the consolidated
program, but indicates a number of issues with regard to
chemical-biological medical defense, logistics, readiness, and
training. As addressed elsewhere in this report, the committee
intends to examine these issues in greater detail during
upcoming oversight hearings.
The committee also notes a growing tendency to fund
individual CBD projects directly within the budget accounts of
the military services. The committee emphasizes that this
practice violates the intent and purpose of Congress in
establishing the consolidated program.
Chemical and biological defense program initiatives
The committee believes that the Department of Defense has
established a robust chemical and biological defense research
and development program that focuses on meeting joint and
service unique operational requirements for medical and non-
medical chemical and biological defense in the areas of
contamination avoidance, battle management, collective
protection, decontamination, and individual protection. The
committee recognizes the challenges faced by the medical
chemical and biological defense program in the development of
medical prophylaxes, pretreatments, and therapies necessary to
protect personnel from the toxic or lethal effects of exposure
to chemical or biological agents. The committee notes the
development and fielding of a number of medical countermeasures
that improve individual medical protection, treatment, and
diagnoses. The committee also notes technical and procedural
shortcomings in the development, licensing, and production of
vaccines and drugs that require both short-term and long-term
solutions. The committee continues to monitor closely the
Department's policy for the development and production of
vaccines against anthrax and for vaccination of members of the
armed forces who might be exposed to anthrax.
The committee continues to support initiatives for
research, development, and demonstration of advanced chemical
and biological defense technologies and systems. The committee
directs that these initiatives compete for funding within the
appropriate program elements of the joint chemical and
biological defense program and the DARPA biological defense
program on the basis of technical merit and the anticipated
ability of the technology or system to meet joint and service
unique needs.
The committee recommends increases of $3.0 million in PE
61384BP and $5.0 million in PE 62384BP for research,
development, and demonstration of advanced chemical and
biological defense technology, systems, and capabilities for
contamination avoidance, battle management, collective
protection, decontamination, and individual protection.
Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
61384BP to continue the basic research program in organic and
inorganic optical computing device materials for use in
standoff sensors for detection and identification of chemical
agents.
Commercial off-the-shelf-receiver development
The budget request included $95.7 million in PE 35885G for
development of tactical cryptologic systems.
The committee is concerned about the lack of a true
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) signals intelligence (SIGINT)
receiver that is based on open-architecture standards
established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
and the Versa Module Europa (VME) backplane. The Department of
Defense has stated that all future signals intelligence systems
will be COTS based. However, most SIGINT developments the
Department is currently pursuing are based wholly, or in part,
on custom approaches that are not ``interchangeable'' at the
circuit board level. The committee is further concerned that
these customized approaches do not encourage competitors for
U.S. signal intelligence systems to utilize the COTS
marketplace, thereby forcing more expensive solutions.
The committee is aware of a small business development that
has produced a true COTS receiver solution for several Defense
Cryptologic Program needs. The committee notes that this
solution is cost-effective and based completely on ANSI and VME
standards, thereby allowing true ``plug and play'' use between
systems. The committee also notes that the Joint SIGINT
Avionics Program Office has sought to use this technology as a
commercial replacement for one of its custom applications.
However, there is no funding in the budget request to pursue or
procure this commercial solution.
The committee is aware of other innovative small business
development using emerging commercial silicon germanium
technology and supports rapid application of this leading-edge
commercial technology for defense applications.
Therefore, the committee recommends $97.7 million in PE
35885G, an increase of $1.0 million for development of COTS VME
receiver technology for SIGINT applications, and an increase of
$1.0 million for development of commercial silicon germanium
integrated circuits for defense and intelligence applications.
Competitive sustainment demonstration
The budget request contained $23.1 million in PE 63712S for
generic logistic research and development technology
demonstrations.
The committee notes that an increasing portion of the
defense budget is being used to support and manage large
inventories of older weapons systems. The committee believes
that costs associated with logistics and maintenance must be
reduced in order to free resources to develop and procure
modern systems. Leveraging the best practices of commercial
industry in logistics and maintenance planning and management
could permit the Department of Defense to reduce these costs in
weapons and supporting systems. The committee notes the
establishment by the Defense Logistics Agency of a sustainment
demonstration program that pursues dramatic reductions in
sustainment costs and improvements in logistics efficiency.
The committee recommends $26.1 million in PE 63712S, an
increase of $3.0 million to continue the competitive
sustainment demonstration program.
Complex systems design
The budget request contained $10.8 million in PE 63704D8Z
for special technical support, but included no funds for
complex systems design.
The committee notes that the effort to develop an
integrated digital environment for complex systems design has
made significant progress, and is ahead of schedule. This
development is critical to improving the acquisition process
and minimizing life-cycle costs of future weapons systems.
The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 63704D8Z, an
increase of $5.0 million for complex systems design.
Computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis
The Department of Defense university research initiative
supports basic research in a wide range of scientific and
engineering disciplines that are relevant to maintaining the
superiority of U.S. military technology such research
contributes to the education of scientists and engineers in
disciplines critical to defense needs, and helps build and
maintain the infrastructure needed to improve the quality of
defense research performed at universities.
The committee notes the increased reliance in defense
research, development, and acquisition on the use of computer
modeling and simulation and the testing of system and component
scale models to evaluate system concepts, technology, and
design. The ability to extend the results of such modeling,
simulation, and testing to the development and fabrication of
full-scale operational systems which can then be expected to
operate in accordance with the test results of the system scale
model places a premium on advancesin the development and
application of finite element analysis and computational fluid
dynamics. The committee believes that the application of such
capabilities to real-world problems associated with analysis of
advanced structures and materials will provide an effective vehicle for
research, education of scientists and engineers, and establishment of
the infrastructure required to insure future U.S. capabilities in these
disciplines.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to place
increased emphasis in the university research initiative on the
development of advanced capabilities in finite element analysis
and computational fluid dynamics.
Computer network security
The budget request contained $164.0 million in PE 63755D8Z
for the High Performance Computing Modernization Program
(HPCMP).
The committee understands that the Department of Defense's
HPCMP is the primary source of Department of Defense computer
system upgrades and enhancements and that the HPCMP
specifically supports needed computer system modernization for
defense laboratories as well.
The committee strongly supports the HPCMP, but expresses
concern that the programs charter does not highlight efforts to
address the increasing security threat to computer systems.
The committee recommends authorization of $164.0 million,
the budget request, in PE 63755D8Z for HPCMP and strongly urges
the DOD to work with industry and basic research organizations
to ensure that computer modernization efforts include the
latest state-of-the-art computer network security and access
assurance capabilities.
CV-22 Osprey radar improvements
The budget request contained $133.5 million in PE 116404BB
for special operations tactical systems development.
The committee is aware that the covert, all-weather, nap-
of-the-earth operations that are characteristic of the special
operations command make stealth and terrain avoidance
imperative. The committee notes that low probability of
intercept/ low probability of detection (LPI/LPD) radar and
terrain following/terrain avoidance (TF/TA) capability are
essential to safe and successful CV-22 Osprey operation.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.2 million in PE
116404BB for LPI/LPD radar and terrain avoidance improvements.
Defense agency science and technology funding
The budget request contained $7,543.2 million for defense
science and technology, including all defense-wide and military
service funding for basic research, applied research, and
advanced development.
The committee notes that this amount represents a decrease
of $853.3 million from the amount provided in fiscal year 2000.
As outlined elsewhere in this report, the committee continues
to be disturbed by the growing number of military service
research and development programs that have been reduced or
eliminated as a result of insufficient research and development
funding, and is particularly concerned with the low level of
science and technology funding. The committee views defense
science and technology investments as critical to maintaining
U.S. military technological superiority in the face of growing
and changing threats to national security interests around the
world.
As expressed in previous reports, the committee is also
concerned by the Department's continuing trend of placing
higher priority on defense agency research and development
programs at the expense of the already inadequate service
research and development budgets. The committee believes that
the Department has not provided sufficient justification to
support these imbalances in funding levels between defense
agencies and the services, and, therefore, recommends
correcting these imbalances by maintaining funding of several
defense agencies at the levels projected by the Department for
fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
adjustments and, except as noted, decreases are made without
prejudice:
Biological warfare defense
The budget request contained $162.1 million in PE 62382E
for applied research in biological warfare defense, including
$10.0 million for applied research in consequence management
information systems.
The committee supports the progress being made in the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's biological warfare
defense program in research in medical countermeasures,
advanced diagnostics, sensors for the detection of biological
and chemical warfare agents, and decontamination. The committee
also notes on-going efforts within the chemical-biological
defense program as noted elsewhere in this report to transition
technologies developed in the DARPA program to the military
services and other agencies for exploitation and further
development.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162)
expressed the belief that DARPA's consequence management
project did not meet the high risk, high payoff, breakthrough
concepts and technology criteria normally associated with DARPA
programs and directed transfer of the program to the DOD
chemical and biological defense program following completion of
the prototype phase. In reviewing the project after another
year has passed, the committee maintains its original view.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $142.1 million in PE
62383E for the DARPA biological warfare defense program, a
decrease of $20.0 million for the DARPA consequence management
project.
Computing systems and communications technology
The budget request contained $376.6 million in PE 62301E
for applied research in computing systems and communications
technology.
The committee recommends $331.6 million, a decrease of
$45.0 million in PE 62301E.
Extensible information systems
The budget request contained $69.3 million in PE 62302E for
applied research in extensible information systems.
The committee recommends $49.3 million in PE 62302E, a
decrease of $20.0 million.
Nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation technologies
The budget request contained $230.9 million in PE 62715BR
for applied research in nuclear sustainment and
counterproliferation technologies.
The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in PE
62715 BR for nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation
technologies.
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 61114D8Z
for the defense experimental program to stimulate competitive
research (DEPSCoR).
The committee is aware that the DEPSCoR program provides
funding that enables broader university participation in
national defense research.
The committee supports DEPSCoR and notes that the
Department of Defense has acknowledged the importance of the
program by requesting funding under a separate program element
line in the budget request, and recommends $19.9 million in PE
61114D8Z, an increase of $10.0 million for DEPSCoR.
Facial recognition technology
The budget request contained $41.3 million for DOD
combating terrorism technology support (CTTS) in PE 63122D8Z.
The CTTS is an interagency program for development and
demonstration of surveillance, physical security, and
infrastructure protection technology. The committee supports
use of advanced technology to control access to critical
facilities and is aware of the Department's examination of
biometric access control technology, including the use of
authentication software and the principal component method of
facial recognition.
The committee recommends $45.3 million in PE 63122D8Z, an
increase of $4.0 million for continued development of facial
recognition technology.
High definition displays for military applications
The budget request contained $31.8 million in PE 62708E for
applied research in high definition displays.
The committee notes that many Department of Defense systems
utilize the display of visual and graphical information and are
therefore dependent on high definition display production
capability. Major components of the program are the development
of technologies for advanced flexible emissive displays,
development of equipment and components required to manufacture
advanced display technologies, and prototyping display systems
for system evaluation. The program is designed to establish a
domesticcapability for the manufacture of components necessary
for high-resolution military displays.
The committee notes the efforts by the Department of
Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) to develop advanced high definition display
technologies for military applications and to establish a
domestic production base for these displays. However, despite
the Department's investment and the strength of the commercial
display industry, the number of suppliers of military-qualified
displays has declined. The committee notes the efforts by the
Department to form a Joint Display Acquisition Working Group
and proposals to form a permanent Display Overarching
Integrated Process Team to address these issues. The committee
is concerned, however, that the budget request indicates no
funding for the DARPA high definition display program beyond
fiscal year 2001.
The committee believes that the Department must renew
efforts to define a comprehensive strategy for development and
acquisition of high definition display technology and for
maintaining a domestic high definition display infrastructure
capable of supporting the requirements of the military services
and defense agencies. The committee believes that the strategy
should include appropriate funding levels for the development
of advanced high definition display and display manufacturing
technology, and should build on prior Department efforts to
ensure that this technology becomes reliably and widely
available to all Services.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a
strategy for meeting the Department's requirements for advanced
high definition displays that addresses the issues raised
above, and to report the proposed strategy and budget
requirements to the congressional defense committees with the
submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
High energy laser research and development
The committee notes that the March 2000 DOD laser master
plan mandated by section 251 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) will
facilitate better coordination between service high energy
laser (HEL) programs and will enable the Department of Defense
to direct a more coherent and more effective investment
strategy for all future high energy laser development. The
committee believes that the management structure recommended in
the plan represents a substantial improvement over the current
situation, where such coordination is virtually absent. The
committee believes that high energy lasers hold considerable
promise for weapons applications sooner than widely
anticipated, and believes that these efforts deserve greater
attention and priority than they have received in the past.
Defense-wide high energy laser development
The budget request contained no funds in PE 61108D8Z, PE
62890D8Z, or PE 63921D8Z for HEL research development.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
established program elements 61108D8Z, 62890D8Z, and 63921D8Z
through which it will manage HEL development investments. The
committee understands that $5.7 million in fiscal year 2000
funds were made available for these program elements to
initiate these efforts.
The committee believes that the establishment of these
program elements will provide the Department of Defense with an
effective management tool that can reinforce HEL developments
managed and funded by the services and the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization. The committee recommends a provision
(section 211), described elsewhere in this report, to reinforce
and provide additional structure to this effort. The committee
notes that this provision would require the Secretary of
Defense and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to conclude a memorandum of agreement to
conduct joint high energy laser research.
The committee recommends $10.0 million in 61108D8Z to
support basic research in high energy lasers, and $25.0 million
in PE 62890D8Z, to support heat capacity laser development
being conducted by the Army and other HEL applied research. The
committee further recommends that of these funds, $10.0 million
may be made available for high energy laser research and
development pursued jointly with the NNSA.
Free electron laser
The budget request contained $38.0 million in PE 62111N for
applied research in electronic warfare technology, but included
funds for free electron laser development.
The committee notes the Navy's support for a proposal to
upgrade the Department of Energy's free electron laser
demonstration facility for applied research in the potential
use of tunable free electron lasers as countermeasures against
anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missile infrared seekers.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62111N to continue the demonstration facility upgrade program.
Solid state laser
The budget request contained $1.0 million in PE 62307A for
research and development of high power lasers for tactical
weapons systems. The committee is aware that the Army, in
cooperation with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has
developed a prototype ten kilowatt solid state heat capacity
glass laser that has been tested successfully. The committee
understands that the Army plans to develop a 100 kilowatt
demonstration laser that could be mounted on Army vehicles for
weapons applications depending on the availability of funds.
The committee believes that this technology has reached a
state of maturity that supports such a demonstration, and if
successful, has significant potential in air defense, missile
defense, and other weapons applications. Therefore, the
committee recommends $11.0 million in PE 62307A, an increase of
$10.0 million, for the Army's solid state laser demonstrator.
The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army
to provide funds for this initiative in the fiscal year 2002
budget request and throughout the future years defense plan.
Information technology, superiority and assurance
The budget request contained a total of $19,913.7 million
for the Defense information technology program: including
$2,456.3 million for information technology research,
development, test, and evaluation, and $1,233.6 million for
information assurance.
The budget request for information technology research and
development represents an increase of $472.2 million, while the
budget request for information assurance contains an increase
of $95.2 million.
The committee notes that the goal of the ``National Plan
for Information Protection, Version 1.0,'' dated January 2000,
is to establish a full operational capability by 2003 to defend
the United States against deliberate attacks aimed at
disrupting national critical infrastructures, such as
communications, banking, electric power. Key elements of the
plan include establishing the Federal government as a model for
infrastructure protection; the development of public-private
partnerships to defend our national infrastructures; meeting
the nation's needs for skilled information technology
personnel; and ensuring a robust and comprehensive critical
infrastructure protection research and development program.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has a
major role in information protection, accounting for
approximately $450 million of the $606 million in research and
development that is specifically contained in the President's
request for the National Plan. The committee is aware of other
ongoing information systems security and critical
infrastructure protection activities that are part of the
Department's information assurance program.
The committee notes that Joint Vision 2010, the capstone
document for joint forces, emphasizes information superiority
and information technology as key enablers for joint operations
by U.S. forces. The committee also notes that the globalization
of information systems and networks has created a new dimension
for warfare in which the dependence of U.S. Forces upon
advanced information technology and information systems is both
an advantage and vulnerability.
The committee notes that considerable progress has been
made in the program to achieve information superiority, provide
information assurance, and protect critical defense
infrastructure. The committee recognizes, however, that
additional work is required, particularly in the areas of
operations-other-than-war or asymmetrical conflict. The
committee believes that the Secretary of Defense must continue
to assign a high priority to resolving critical shortcomings in
the Department's information technology program.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162)
directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense to provide a
comprehensive report to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees on the Department of Defense's
information superiority program. The report by the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence) (ASD C3I) cites the need to focus more attention
and to accelerate efforts on the following:
(1) Information assurance to better protect
information and information processes;
(2) Establishing the connectivity and
interoperability needed in the global information grid;
(3) Collection and analysis capabilities and end-to-
end integration of communications and intelligence
systems;
(4) Education, training, and retention of information
technology professionals;
(5) Removal of legal impediments to protecting
information and information processes; and,
(6) Implementation of electronic commerce and
electronic business practices within the Department.
To address these issues the committee recommends the budget
request for information technology research, development, test,
and evaluation. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to assess shortfalls in the information technology program and
to report his findings and recommendations to the congressional
defense committees by November 1, 2000.
Interference with global positioning system
The committee notes that section 1062 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) provided for an interagency review and assessment and
report to Congress and the President on the progress made in
implementation of national spectrum planning, the reallocation
of Federal Government spectrum to non-Federal use, and the
implications of such reallocations to the affected federal
agencies. The report would also include which would include the
effect of the reallocation on critical military and
intelligence capabilities, civil space programs, and other
Federal government systems used to protect public safety.
The committee notes the potential interference to the
communications frequency bands used by the global positioning
system (GPS) due to the emergence of new telecommunications and
information technologies that could aversely affect GPS use in
both military and civilian sectors. As a part of the Department
of Defense contribution to the interagency review and
assessment, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
identify potential interference with the GPS frequency bands as
one of the issues that should be addressed in the assessment.
The Secretary shall coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce and Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
in developing the technical information, support, and
assistance necessary to address this issue and to begin the
development of appropriate regulations and enforcement
procedures to protect the delivery of GPS signals during
peacetime.
MC-130 autonomous landing guidance system
The budget request contained $133.5 million in PE 116404BB
for special operations tactical systems development but
included no funds for the autonomous landing guidance (ALG)
system for the MC-130 aircraft.
The MC-130 aircraft provides night and all-weather
infiltration and extraction of special operations forces (SOF)
personnel and equipment, as well as military re-supply
operations, in hostile areas. To accomplish this mission, the
committee understands that the ALG system will provide SOF MC-
130 pilots with a precision approach system that enhances their
ability to land under adverse weather conditions. Since the
committee also understands that the ALG system may have
application to other aircraft such as the C-130X and the C-17,
it believes that both the ALG system's MC-130 flight tests and
its engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) should be
accelerated.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in PE 116404BB to accelerate the ALG system's flight
tests, EMD and installation on the MC-130.
Medical free electron laser
The budget request contained $15.0 million in PE 62227D8Z
for medical free electron laser (MFEL) technology.
The committee is aware of the progress made by the medical
free electron laser program. The committee notes that recent
accomplishments include a new method of treating chemical
burns, controlling sepsis, the development of artificial
cartilage for injured joints, non-thermal cutting of bone,
tissue welding and delivery of drugs through the skin. These
new health care technologies are not only cost effective but
also address key health care issues important both to military
personnel and the general population.
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
requesting sufficient funding for the MFEL to maintain the
merit-based program's continued research momentum and
recommends $15.0 million. The committee supports the MFEL
program and encourages the Department of Defense to sustain
this level of funding.
Microelectromechanical systems sensor development
The budget request contained $253.6 million in PE 61103D8Z
for the Department of Defense university research initiative.
The committee continues its support for and recommends
funding for research and development in microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS) and applications of MEMS technology in precision
weapons guidance and control, reconfigurable antenna elements,
and a variety of other applications.
The committee recommends $263.1 million in PE 61103D8Z,
including an increase of $9.5 million for basic research in
MEMS sensors for radionuclide detection and ordnance
monitoring.
National imagery and mapping agency
The budget request contained $75.0 million in PE 35102BQ
for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency's (NIMA) to conduct
research and development of imagery and geospatial exploitation
tools and for the National Technology Alliance (NTA).
The committee is concerned that the variety of current
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging systems, including the
Joint Surveillance, Target and Attack Radar System (JSTARS),
the U-2 Advanced SAR System (ASARS) and unmanned aerial
vehicles have limited to no capability to image moving targets.
The committee notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory in
Rome, New York, has been developing the Multi-Platform Target
Exploitation Processing capability that will allow SAR imaging
of moving targets. However, no funds were included in the
budget request to field such a capability, which, the committee
is convinced, will result in significant new capabilities for
SAR-equipped platforms.
Further, the committee notes that the NTA has proven its
ability to rapidly apply commercial technology to defense
applications, reducing cost and increasing systems performance.
The committee also notes that the NTA has been a very effective
means of leveraging commercial technology to solve intelligence
community technical problems.
The committee is aware that the airborne geographic
synthetic aperture radar GeoSAR) is being developed to provide
a dual band interferometric radar that is able to provide the
military high resolution, three-dimensional maps of the earth,
above, through and below the vegetation canopy.
Therefore, the committee recommends $97.0 million in PE
35102BQ, an increase of $22.0 million, $4.0 million for
continuing the Rome Laboratory moving target exploitation
effort, and $3.0 million for the NTA to continue national
imagery and mapping agency viewer development and $15.0 million
for GeoSAR.
Requirement for ``designated laboratory''
The committee notes that section 2, paragraph (18) of
Senate Executive Resolution 75 providing the advice and consent
of the Senate to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC), established the condition that the President
certify to the Senate that no sample collected in the United
States pursuant to the Convention will be transferred for
analysis to any laboratory outside the United States. In its
verification annex, the CWC requires that samples for off-site
analysis be analyzed in at least two ``designated
laboratories,'' i.e. laboratories that have been ``designated''
for such testing by the Organization for Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The Army's Edgewood Forensic Science
Laboratory is currently the only U.S. designated laboratory.
The committee notes that establishment of a second designated
laboratory within the United States is necessary in order to
fulfill U.S. ratification commitments, as well as the
requirements imposed by the Senate.
The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense report
to the congressional defense committees with the submission of
the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Department of Defense
position, actions, and funding requirements relative to
establishment of a second designated laboratory.
Science and technology affordability initiative
The committee is aware of the Department's ``Defense
Science and Technology Strategy 2000'' and notes the potential
for significant savings in defense systems ownership cost
savings associated with science and technology investments. The
committee agrees that science and technology advancements can
contribute to the affordability of both current and future
systems, and supports the Department's emphasis in this area as
one of its top five priorities.
Further, the committee is aware that each service has a
current program of emphasis in this area. Anticipated Army
science and technology investments focus a great deal of
attention to reduced logistical requirements for improved
deployability and maneuverability. Air Force plans anticipate
targeted investments to facilitate the fieldingof a more lean
and efficient expeditionary force. The Navy has embraced a concept
called Total Cost of Ownership as one of its twelve Future Naval
Capabilities. Two initiatives, Shipboard Integration Logistics System
(SILS) and a proposed knowledge-based diagnostic and maintenance
system, offer significant potential cost savings during the operation
and maintenance of naval assets.
The committee urges further development of these proposals
and supports the budget request. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2001, a report on the manner in which
the science and technology program addresses total life cycle
costs of weapons systems. The report shall include a
description and assessment of the programs, associated funding
requirements, and related policy initiatives.
Special operations tactical video system
The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 116405BB
for Special Operations Forces (SOF) intelligence system
developments, including $100,000 for continued development of
the Special Operations Tactical Video System (SOTVS).
The committee notes that no commercial solution to the SOF
underwater camera requirements exists, and that a dedicated
research and development program is necessary to satisfy this
critical mission requirement. Therefore, the committee is
dismayed that the budget request is insufficient to develop and
procure a replacement for the aging cameras currently in the
inventory.
The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE116405BB, an
increase of $2.0 million to expedite the development of the
SOTVS camera.
Tactical and support aircraft noise reduction
The committee notes problems with increasing levels of
noise pollution associated with aircraft operations ashore and
afloat and the potential physical and environmental hazards
posed by high frequency and intensity noise and vibration to
aircrew, ground support personnel, and those residing and
working in the vicinity of active aviation operations. The
committee also notes the impact of high noise and vibration
levels experienced in tactical aircraft on aircraft structural
fatigue.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has not given adequate attention to noise reduction as an
essential element of the tactical aircraft modernization
program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Director of the National Aeronautical and
Space Administration, to assess requirements for establishment
of an aviation noise and vibration reduction research and
development program that will lead to reduction in noise
associated with tactical and support aircraft operations. The
committee further directs the Secretary to report to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2001, the status
of funding and plans for noise reduction in tactical and
support aircraft and for the reduction of sound pressure levels
that can cause vibration problems and structural fatigue.
Texas regional institute for environmental studies
The budget request contained $51.4 million in PE 63716D8Z
for the strategic environmental research program, but included
no funds for the ongoing Texas regional institute for
environmental studies (TRIES) program
The committee recommends $51.4 million in PE 63716D8Z for
the strategic environmental research program, including $3.0
million for the TRIES computer-based land management model and
to collaborate with Brooks Air Force Base San Antonio, Texas
for potential application of environmental technologies.
Thermionics for space power systems
The budget request contained $230.9 million in PE 62715BR
for applied research in nuclear sustainment and
counterproliferation technologies, but included no funds to
continue the program for development of thermionic power
conversion technology.
The committee notes that the Air Force and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration have identified potential
applications for large capacity (40-100 kilowatt) nuclear space
power systems having long lifetimes. The committee also notes
the progress being made in the advanced thermionics program to
develop technologies for making thermionics a more viable power
conversion option for space power systems, demonstrate highly
reliable thermionic power converters capable of providing high
output power per unit mass, and design of thermionic system
concepts. The committee further notes that the program supports
the Defense technology area plan for space platforms.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess
the progress being made in the advanced thermionics program,
the potential for incorporation of the program in the
Department of Defense core science and technology program, and
anticipated requirements for thermionic power conversion
systems. The Secretary shall report the results of the
assessment and plans for continuation of the program to the
congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62715BR to continue the development of advanced thermionics
power conversion technology.
TRICARE encounter data system
The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 65013D8Z
for information technology development.
The committee is concerned that no funds were included to
accelerate the development and deployment of the TRICARE
encounter data system (TEDS), a key system for improving the
efficiency of the TRICARE claims processing system.
The committee recommends $15.6 million in PE 65013D8Z, an
increase of $3.6 million to complete development of TEDS.
Ultra-wideband radar
The budget request contained $116.4 million in PE 63750D8Z
for advanced concept technology demonstrations, but included no
funds to demonstrate ultra-wideband, single-cycle radar and
communications.
The committee is aware that recent unanticipated technology
breakthroughs in radio frequency electronics have resulted in
applications for radar and communications. The committee notes
that ultra-wideband, single cycle technology is now ready for
demonstration of wall penetrating radar capability.
The committee recommends $117.4 million in PE 63750D8Z, an
increase of $1.0 million for radar vision demonstration.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $201.6 million for Operational
Test and Evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends
authorization of $219.6 million, an increase of $18.0 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense programs are
identified in the table below. Major changes to the Operational
Test and Evaluation request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Central test and evaluation investment program
The budget request contained $121.4 million in PE 64940D8Z
for Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP).
The committee notes that the objective of the CTEIP is to
fund critically needed, high priority, test and evaluation
capabilities for joint and multi-service system test
requirements. The Department of Defense recently disbanded the
office of the Director, Test, Systems Engineering and
Evaluation, formerly responsible for CTEIP as an element of the
Department's developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) program,
and transferred responsibility for the CTEIP to the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). The committee notes
that the first CTEIP budget request under the DOT&E management
represents a decrease in funding for this important program.
The committee expresses concern that while the Department's
decreased request for CTEIP indicates that less funding is
required, the military services are, at the same time,
identifying an alarming increase in critically needed test
facility upgrades and instrumentation modernization. The
committee believes that the combination of declining research,
development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) budgets and an
increasing number of test facility sustainment issues is
largely responsible for the decline in utilization of service
operated test facilities. The committee is also aware of test
and evaluation (T&E) community concerns that the continued
decline in utilization of these T&E facilities is a primary
cause of the underfunded status of these facilities within the
service budget requests and, therefore, a direct cause of the
higher testing costs assessed to test program customers.
The committee is aware that the Department is reviewing
this critical test facility sustainment issue, but believes
that decreases in the CTEIP are premature and do not address
the importance of the growing list of proposed test facility
and range modernization efforts. The committee notes that the
Army Chief of Staff has identified a high priority unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001 for $26.0 million of test and
evaluation upgrades. The committee also notes that the Air
Force is conducting a propulsion wind tunnel (PWT) upgrade
program to modernize the primary wind tunnel facilities used
for transonic and supersonic testing of major propulsion
development programs including F-22 and the Joint Strike
Fighter. Additional funds for the PWT program would enhance
structural test monitoring and data analysis and enable Air
Force test facilities to increase and enhance turbine engine
test capability. The committee is also aware of an innovative
new technology, Laser Induced Surface Improvement (LISI), which
would have far reaching joint service benefits. A multi-service
cooperative program incorporating the LISI technology would cut
test time and costs, as well as reduce long term maintenance
and material construction costs through the use of new laser
surfacing technologies synergistically applied to several Air
Force, Navy, and Army assets vulnerable to corrosion and
abrasion. The committee believes LISI is a project with a
limitless potential for the military and eventually for private
sector use, and is a worthy candidate for funding under CTEIP.
The committee believes that many of the service test
facility modernization proposals such as digital video data
collection and similar instrumentation upgrade efforts would
support establishment of uniform test data collection for all
service-run T&E facilities.
The committee is disturbed by the Department's inability to
ensure sufficient funds necessary to sustain T&E facilities, as
well as the many worthy test facility upgrades identified by
the services. The committee is aware that the Department is
conducting an assessment of various funding methods, to include
consideration of working capital funding and other T&E customer
cost-sharing alternatives in order to ensure adequate
sustainment funding for T&E facilities. The committee expresses
strong congressional interest in this issue and directs the
Secretary of Defense to report any recommended change to
current funding procedures for these facilities prior to
including them in future budget requests.
The committee recommends $139.4 million, an increase of
$18.0 million to address additional T&E facility upgrade
proposals within the CTEIP and supports this program as an
appropriate method of ensuring coordinated investments to
support joint requirements for T&E facility upgrades and
capability sustainment efforts.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing
and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 2000.
Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research
This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal
year 2000 for technology base programs.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--High Energy Laser Programs
This section would authorize funds for high energy laser
(HEL) research and development; require a designated senior
civilian official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) to carry out responsibilities for coordinating,
prioritizing, planning, programming, and oversight of HEL
programs, establish appropriate policy to guide funding of OSD,
services and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) HEL
programs; state a sense of Congress concerning funding levels
for HEL research and development; require the establishment of
a memorandum of agreement between the Secretary of Defense and
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration to conduct joint laser research programs; and
establish certain reporting requirements.
The committee notes that the High Energy Laser Executive
Review Panel (HELERP) prepared the laser master plan mandated
by section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). This report identifies
many of the technical challenges in maturing laser technologies
for weapons applications and establishes a High Energy Laser
Board of Directors, chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, to oversee and
approve HEL science and technology investments. The committee
believes that this organization represents a significant
advance over the past, in which laser development activities
proceeded within the services with little or no coordination.
However, the committee remains concerned that the
management structure established by the HELERP may not vest
sufficient authority in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
to assure that service and BMDO HEL programs are fully
coordinated. The committee is also concerned that this
structure and the funding mechanisms established in the laser
master plan will not be adequate to encourage the services to
invest scarce resources in a potentially revolutionary
capability. Section 211 would define the authorities of a
designated OSD official to assure that HEL programs within the
Department of Defense are adequately funded and coordinated.
The committee also believes that requiring OSD funding to
support service--and BMDO--funded HEL programs at a level no
greater than that provided by the service or BMDO will maximize
the relevance of OSD efforts to service and BMD requirements
and incentivize appropriate investment in these technologies.
Section 212--Management of Space-Based Infrared System-Low
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
assign program management authority for the Space-Based
Infrared System-Low to the Director of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization.
Section 213--Joint Strike Fighter
This section would limit the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
program's approval to proceed beyond the demonstration and
validation phase until the Secretary of Defense certifies to
the congressional defense committees that the technological
maturity of the JSF program's key technologies is sufficient to
warrant its entry into the engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) stage.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
Section 231--Funding for Fiscal Year 2001
The section would authorize appropriations for research and
development for National Missile Defense for fiscal year 2001.
Section 232--Sense of Congress Concerning Commitment to Deploy National
Missile Defense
This section would make certain findings and express the
sense of Congress that the enactment of the National Missile
Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38) entails a commitment to
deploy a national missile defense.
The committee believes that integrated flight tests to date
demonstrate the feasibility of the National Missile Defense
(NMD) technology under development. Integrated Flight Test-3
(IFT-3) confirmed the ability of the exoatmospheric kill
vehicle (EKV) to discriminate a warhead from other objects.
IFT-4, notwithstanding the fact that the EKV missed the target
because of failure of EKV sensors, confirmed the ability of the
NMD battle management, command and control system, early
warning sensors, and radar to provide engagement information to
the kill vehicle as a functioning system of systems. The
committee recognizes that much test and evaluation remains to
be done, but believes that the tests to date provide confidence
that NMD system technologies are feasible.
The committee believes that the North Korean development of
long-range missiles capable of reaching the continental United
States is sufficiently mature that a commitment to a firm
deployment schedule is warranted. The committee notes that the
September 1999 threat assessment by the National Intelligence
Council states that Iran could test an ICBM by the latter half
of this decade. The committee further notes that the Secretary
of Defense shares the view that ``the threat threshold has been
crossed.''
The committee notes that the National Missile Defense Act
of 1999 (Public Law 106-38) established that it is the policy
of the United States to deploy an NMD system as soon as
technically possible. The committee remains baffled by
Administration statements to the effect that, while the policy
of the United States is to deploy a national missile defense,
no decision has been made to deploy such a defense. The
committee believes that the establishment of any policy incurs
an inherent commitment to execute it.
Section 233--Reports on Ballistic Missile Threat Posed By North Korea
This section would require the President to issue, within
two weeks of the next test of a long-range ballistic missile by
North Korea or 60 days after the date of enactment, a report to
assess the North Korean missile threat, the U.S. capability to
defend against that threat, proliferation threats, steps the
U.S. will take to reduce the threat while the nation is
vulnerable, and the viability of testing other BMD systems
against targets with flight characteristics similar to those of
long range North Korean missiles.
The committee believes that if North Korea should test a
long-range missile, the Department of Defense should quickly
revise threat assessments and rapidly put into place actions to
reduce the increased vulnerability that are assessed as result
of the test.
Section 234--Plan to Modify Ballistic Missile Defense Architecture to
Cover Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile Threats
This section would require the Director of Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization to develop a plan to address
threats posed by ballistic missiles of 2500 to 4000 kilometers
in range.
The committee notes that the National Missile Defense
system under development will defend the United States from
intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and theater missile
defense systems under development will provide effective
defense for U.S. forces and allies from ballistic missiles with
ranges out to approximately 2000 kilometers. The committee
notes that, according to public reports, Iran is developing an
intermediate range ballistic missile with a range well in
excess of 2000 kilometers, capable of striking virtually all of
Europe. The committee believes that the evolution of this
threat must be addressed in BMD architecture and technology
development.
Section 235--Designation of Airborne Laser Program as a Program Element
of Ballistic Missile Defense Program
This section would establish a new program element in the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) for the airborne
laser.
The committee notes that Airborne Laser (ABL) is a key
element of BMDO architectures. The committee notes that the Air
Force drastically reduced funding and delayed ABL testing and
deployment schedules by as much as seven years. The committee
further notes that the Air Force did so without consulting BMDO
and without consideration of the impact on the BMD architecture
developed by BMDO or requirements for upper and lower tier BMD
systems. To properly coordinate the elements of the BMD
architecture and BMD technology development, the committee
believes that ABL is more effectively managed and funded by
BMDO.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 241--Recognition of Those Individuals Instrumental to Naval
Research Efforts During the Period from Before World War II Through the
End of the Cold War
This provision would recognize those individuals
instrumental in the establishment and conduct of oceanographic
and scientific research partnerships between the Federal
Government and academic institutions during the period
beginning before World War II and continuing through the end of
the Cold War, support efforts by the Secretary of the Navy and
the Chief of Naval Research to honor those individuals, and
express appreciation for the ongoing efforts of the Office of
Naval Research to support oceanographic and scientific research
and the development of researchers in scientific fields related
to the missions of the Navy and the Marine Corps.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2001 for operation and
maintenance represents an increase in spending of just $3.0
billion over spending levels authorized and appropriated for
fiscal year 2000. Increasing fuel prices account for $1.2
billion of that increase, and the remaining represents
inflation assumptions of about one percent. Despite the
Administration's reported funding increase, the reality of the
budget request is that there are little if any real increases.
The committee is concerned that current budget estimates
project a decrease in operation and maintenance funding for
critical readiness needs for fiscal year 2002.
Despite increased funding by Congress for readiness, the
budget request for fiscal year 2001 falls well short of
addressing many of the military services' current and future
readiness requirements. Compounding the problem, the budget
request does not adequately take into account the current and
future financial impacts on equipment, training, and facilities
being created by the high pace of unscheduled contingency
operations around the world. The committee remains deeply
concerned that the continued underfunding of key readiness and
quality of life accounts, coupled with a continued high pace of
operations, will exacerbate readiness and personnel retention
concerns. For example, in spite of the addition by Congress of
$858.4 million to the real property maintenance and repair
accounts of the four military services in fiscal year 2000, the
chiefs' fiscal year 2000 unfunded priorities list still
identifies a real property and repair shortfall of over $1.03
billion. Despite a Congressional increase last year of $135.0
million for spare parts, the services unfunded priorities list
nonetheless identifies a shortfall in spare parts funding of
$250.0 million in fiscal year 2001. As a further example,
Congress increased the budget request for ship depot
maintenance by $25.0 million last year, yet this year's
unfunded priorities list reflects a shortfall in fiscal year
2001 of $182.3 million.
In an effort to obtain a more accurate and detailed
assessment of current and near-term readiness, the committee
conducted a series of hearings. The evidence received during
the hearings was of an overextended force struggling to
maintain acceptable readiness levels in an environment of
declining human and budgetary resources. The committee
continues to hear significant complaints about lack of spare
parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure and growing
equipment and facilities' backlogs and the difficulties of
conducting quality training and operational deployments with
significant personnel shortages.
The committee continues to believe that DOD must continue
to take steps to reduce costs in non-readiness related
accounts. At the same time, DOD must provide more aggressive
oversight of the military department's proposals to reduce
costs through contracting out and privatization. As an example,
the Department of the Navy has proposed the contracting out of
a major portion of its communications requirements without
including any documentation for this proposed five-year, $10.0
billion program. Proposals of this magnitude may have serious
budgetary consequences for other DOD programs. The committee
fully supports well developed and justified programs that will
reduce costs; but, at a time when readiness shortfalls are
growing almost exponentially, the committee does not believe
that poorly developed and uncoordinated new programs, or that
funding for administrative and support activities, such as
headquarters management, should be increasing. Consistent with
past practice, the committee has identified spending that does
not directly support military readiness and has reprioritized
it into areas that will. In making decisions on how best to
apply resources to address readiness problems, the committee
relied heavily on lessons learned during extensive oversight
hearings and on the unfunded priorities lists provided by the
service chiefs.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Increases
Critical Readiness Accounts
The committee continues to place a high priority on
addressing funding shortfalls for critical readiness accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
approximately $1.4 billion to support a number of underfunded
readiness accounts. Although the committee has significantly
increased funding above the budget request in key readiness
accounts by just under $10.0 billion during the past six years,
this has not been sufficient to significantly improve readiness
across the military services. The committee recommendations
emphasize problems highlighted throughout extensive hearings
and have been guided by the shortfalls identified by the
service chiefs.
Depot maintenance
The committee notes that operational tempo is at an all-
time high and that aging military equipment is approaching a
point beyond its useful service life. As a consequence of the
aging of significant elements of the services' combat
equipment, the maintenance of such equipment is increasingly
difficult, time consuming, and expensive. The committee
recommends an increase of $461.1 million for depot maintenance
to address the added requirements of aging combat equipment as
follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army..............................................................$125.0
Navy (Air)........................................................ 30.0
Navy (Sea)........................................................ 204.3
Marine Corps...................................................... 22.0
Marine Corps Reserve.............................................. 2.0
Air Force......................................................... 77.8
Real property maintenance
The committee continues to note that shortfalls in real
property maintenance accounts remain among the principal
unfunded requirement identified by the service chiefs. To
address the backlog of facility maintenance, the committee
recommends an increase of $660.0 million as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army.......................................................... $280.36
Navy.......................................................... 162.17
Marine Corps.................................................. 38.320
Marine Corps Reserve.......................................... 3.11
Air Force..................................................... 176.04
Miscellaneous unfunded requirements
The committee recommends an increase of $403.992 million in
funding for miscellaneous unfunded readiness-related
requirements identified by the service chiefs and the
committee:
[Dollars in millions]
Army.......................................................... $136.152
Army Reserve.................................................. 12.0
Army National Guard........................................... 24.0
Navy.......................................................... 44.74
Marine Corps.................................................. 75.8
Marine Corps Reserve.......................................... 8.2
Air Force..................................................... 67.1
Air National Guard............................................ 6.0
Mobility enhancement funding
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to
improve the deployment and mobility of military forces and
supplies through investment in en route infrastructure. These
funds are provided to the United States Transportation Command
Mobility Enhancement Fund (MEF), which was established to
address strategic mobility shortcomings that were apparent
during the conduct of Operation Desert Shield and Operation
Desert Storm. The committee believes that these funds will
improve the ability of the military services to respond to
future contingencies.
Training accounts
The committee continues to focus its attention on the
training accounts of the military services. In hearings this
year, the committee continued to hear reports that insufficient
funding has been a contributing factor in the decline in the
quality of training provided our combat forces. Shortages of
equipment, parts, decaying infrastructure, and personnel
shortages were identified as serious problems. The committee
believes that training equipment and base facilities at many of
the established training ranges is in urgent need of both
repair and upgrade.
Therefore, based on shortfalls identified by the military
services, the committee recommends an increase of $153.3
million as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army:
Training Range Modernization.................................. $76.0
Training Area Environmental Management........................ 32.0
Institutional Training........................................ 15.0
Specialized Skill Training.................................... 15.0
Marine Corps:
Institutional Training........................................ 4.0
Marine Corps Reserve:
Training Center Improvements.................................. 1.2
Air Force:
LD/HD Flight Crew Training.................................... 5.1
Institutional Training........................................ 5.0
Army Cold Weather Clothing
The committee is aware of unbudgeted requirements for the
reserve components for the Extended Cold Weather Clothing
System (ECWCS), which is designed to provide protection during
cold and wet weather. The committee notes, for example, that
the Army National Guard has equipped only 25 percent of its
forces with this clothing. The committee believes ECWCS is a
significant contributor to the combat readiness of the
individual soldier. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of funding for ECWCS as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army National Guard............................................... $24.0
Army Reserve...................................................... 12.0
Air National Guard................................................ 6.0
Budget Request Reductions
Civilian Personnel Reductions
The committee understands that in order to determine
civilian personnel requirements for the budget request, the
Department of Defense relied on actual fiscal year 1999
personnel levels and the estimated personnel levels the
Department would have on hand at the end of fiscal year 2000 to
forecast civilian personnel levels for fiscal year 2001. The
committee notes that the Department was unable to estimate
accurately the fiscal year 2000 end strength prior to the
submission of the budget request. The committee further notes
the General Accounting Office (GAO) has determined that the
Department will employ fewer civilian personnel at the
beginning of fiscal year 2001 than are assumed in the budget
request. Therefore, the committee recommends decreases in
funding as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Navy.............................................................. $49.6
Defense Agencies.................................................. 0.9
Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions
Since the submission of the budget request, the U.S. dollar
has increased in value compared to various foreign currencies.
As a result, the committee believes that thebudget request is
overstated. In addition, the committee understands that the Defense
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account already contains a balance of over
$600.0 million to be used in the event that unfavorable currency
fluctuations develop. The committee believes the requested amount is,
therefore, in excess of the needs of the Department and recommends the
following reductions:
[Dollars in millions]
Army..............................................................$150.0
Navy.............................................................. 30.0
Marine Corps...................................................... 2.2
Air Force......................................................... 37.7
Defense Agencies.................................................. 10.1
Headquarters Reductions
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Department has
failed to comply with the reductions in headquarters personnel
mandated by section 921 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). Therefore, the
committee recommends decreases in funding for headquarters
activities as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army.......................................................... $27.086
Navy.......................................................... 13.340
Air Force..................................................... 12.200
Special Operations Command.................................... 1.682
Office, Secretary of Defense.................................. 4.446
The Joint Staff............................................... 0.552
Defense Agencies.............................................. 12.586
Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises
The committee continues to be concerned with the increasing
pace of operations throughout the military services and
believes that requirements for Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)
training exercises are levied against units already
overextended with operational deployments, home station
training exercises, and training exercises at the services'
major combat training centers. The committee questions whether
the benefits of the current scope of JCS exercises exceeds the
costs to military units otherwise experiencing the effects of
high operational tempo. Therefore, the committee recommends a
reduction for participation in JCS exercises as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army.......................................................... $11.000
Navy.......................................................... 1.014
Air Force..................................................... 12.200
Joint Chiefs of Staff......................................... 32.914
Other Items of Special Interest
Accountability of Operation and Maintenance Funding
The committee is alarmed by recent reports regarding the
movement within the military services of large amounts of funds
authorized and appropriated for operation and maintenance (O&M)
accounts. The committee notes recent reports by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) indicate the Department of Defense
(DOD) redirected funds within O&M readiness accounts by almost
$43.0 billion between fiscal years 1994 and 1998. These changes
to the original intent specified by Congress included transfers
into, as well as out, of several accounts considered critical
to readiness. Although these transferred funds were
subsequently used for shortfalls in other O&M accounts, the
committee is especially concerned about the underexecution of
funding provided by Congress in the readiness critical
accounts. The committee notes that over the five-year period
assessed by GAO, the Department of the Navy underexecuted by
$1.2 billion the ship depot maintenance portion, and that the
Department of the Air Force underexecuted by $988.4 million
support of primary combat forces. The Department of the Army,
over just the past two years, underexecuted by $579.9 million
its support of combat divisions. Although the committee
understands that the unexecuted funds were applied to other
requirements, the committee believes that movements of funds
intended for critical readiness accounts will have a severe
impact on the ability of the services to maintain readiness at
acceptable levels.
Environmental Issues
Fines and Penalties
The committee supports the goal of the Department of
Defense (DOD) environmental quality program to transition from
a reactive, compliance-driven focus to a more proactive goal-
oriented approach. The committee is concerned, however, with
the Department of the Army's effort to achieve this goal. The
committee notes that the Army continually receives a
disproportional number of environmental non-compliance
assessments, and that the Army pays the majority of fines and
penalties levied against DOD. The committee further notes, of
the total DOD fines and penalties paid in fiscal years 1997,
1998, and 1999, the Army's portion was 97, 53, and 87 percent,
respectively. The committee believes that the Secretary of the
Army must place greater emphasis on efforts to achieve
environmental compliance and to achieve DOD's goals within the
environmental quality program.
Navy Environmental Leadership Program
The committee continues to support the Chief of Naval
Operation's Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP) and
believes that while there have been numerous programmatic
successes in NELP, many of which are being implemented
throughout the Navy, budget constraints have prevented NELP
from reaching its full potential in providing solutions to
priority Navy environmental problems. Current requirements
include pollution prevention technologies, implementation of
Green Energy Management initiatives, and development of a
regional prototype for hazardous waste management. To support
improved environmental stewardship efforts, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the NELP. The
committee strongly believes that this increase in funds would
permit a cost-effective leveraging of ongoing efforts to meet
urgent Navy environmental requirements.
Intelligence Issues
Cryptologic Skills Training
The budget request contained $1.3 million in operation and
maintenance, Army, for conducting cryptologic and language
skills training at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center (USAIC).
The committee is aware of a unique Korean language training
program developed in-house at the USAIC. The committee believes
this computer-based tool has the potential of providing
critical language maintenance training for many language
specialists, and it believes this effort should be expanded to
other languages.
Consequently, the committee recommends $5.3 million in
operation and maintenance, Army, an increase of $4.0 million,
for continued development of this language training program
into the service's seven core language requirements. The
committee also recommends that this program be provided to the
other services for language training maintenance.
Defense Foreign Language Program
The budget request contained $61.9 million in operation and
maintenance, Army, for the Defense Language Institute (DLI)
The committee is supportive of DLI training efforts to
provide high quality linguists for the growing requirement of
many agencies and services but believes that its language
laboratories are in need of technical upgrades, to include new
equipment and access to the internet. The committee is aware of
local area Marine Corps self-help efforts that have done
similar upgrades very cost effectively. The committee believes
the Army should utilize the Marine Corps self-help assistance
to upgrade the DLI language laboratories
Further, the committee is aware of an unfunded DLI
initiative to provide better language training by issuing
laptop computers to students. These computers would be used to
provide language laboratory access to on-line language training
materials, allow ``after hours'' access from the institute's
dormitories, and access to ``live'' world-wide foreign training
materials. The committee believes this is a worthwhile effort
that should be properly funded
Therefore, the committee recommends $64.9 million in
operation and maintenance, Army, an increase of $3.0 million,
for the Defense Foreign LanguageProgram. Of this amount, $1.0
million is for self-help upgrade of the language laboratories and $2.0
million is for the laptop computer initiative.
Distributed Common Ground System
The committee understands that the Air Force is currently
operating with a waiver to utilize communications for the Air
Force's Distributed Common Ground Systems (DCGS) reachback
operations that are provided in whole or part by national
agencies within the National Foreign Intelligence Program. The
committee further understands that this arrangement has allowed
the DCGS to have access to wideband communications at very
inexpensive rates, and accordingly, that the Air Force is
seeking a permanent waiver to continue this arrangement.
However, the committee has learned that the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and
Intelligence) has directed that all continental United States
DCGS long-haul communications are to be procured through the
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). The committee
understands that this will increase the Air Force's
communications costs by a factor of 16 and that this cost
increase is unfunded in the fiscal year 2001 request. The
committee finds this increase incomprehensible and notes that
such direction is not in accord with congressional efforts to
create an interoperable, networked Intelligence Community
communications environment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) to
provide the defense and intelligence committees a report that
clearly identifies the costs, the rationale for the cost
differences and the benefits versus drawbacks of providing DCGS
communications through the national partner or the DISA.
Further, this report is to provide the rationale for approval
of the current temporary waiver and the Assistant Secretary's
decision for a permanent waiver. The committee directs that no
DCGS funding authorized for appropriation in this act be
obligated or expended by DISA, or transferred through DISA, for
procurement or lease of DCGS communications until this report
is provided.
Eagle Vision Commercial Imagery
The budget request contained $10.0 million for the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to purchase commercial data.
The committee notes the successful Air Force operation of
the Eagle Vision commercial imagery ground station, which has
resulted in timely, unclassified imagery support to the theater
commanders-in-chief (CINCs). Much of this imagery has been
unique and could not be provided by other technical means due
to higher priorities. The committee believes that there are
insufficient funds to meet the CINCs' commercial image and
mapping needs and, therefore, recommends $16.0 million, an
increase of $6.0 million, for purchasing Eagle Vision
commercial imagery.
Integrated Broadcast Service
The budget request contained $15.1 million in operations
and maintenance, Navy, for the Integrated Broadcast Service
(IBS).
The committee notes that, subsequent to the submission of
the budget request to Congress, the IBS executive agent was
changed from the Navy to the Air Force. Therefore, the
committee recommends a transfer of $15.1 million from operation
and maintenance, Navy, to operation and maintenance, Air Force.
RC-135 and U-2 Operations and Maintenance
The budget request contained a total of $373.1 million for
operations and maintenance of the RC-135 and U-2 aircraft
fleets.
The committee is concerned that funding for many
Intelligence Community programs, including intelligence
surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft are regularly
transferred from the programs for which funds were authorized
and appropriated to fund shortfalls in other programs, often
not related to ISR requirements. The committee understands the
theater and functional Commanders in Chief have stated that
their number one shortfall is in ISR aircraft and systems. The
committee is concerned that transferring funding, particularly
operation and maintenance funding, from ISR aircraft to fund
non-intelligence programs exacerbates the CINCs' ISR
shortfalls.
Therefore the committee directs that the RC-135 and U-2
programs be designated as congressional interest items.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues
Armed Forces Recreation Centers
The committee notes that the Army operates, on behalf of
all military personnel, several popular recreational facilities
known collectively as Armed Forces Recreation Centers (AFRC).
These facilities provide much needed recreation opportunities
to service members and their families at a reasonable cost, and
the committee has consistently supported these important
programs. The committee is aware that access to AFRC facilities
is not limited to active duty, reserve, and retired service
members, but is also available to a broad array of other
personnel, including many with no military service. The
committee believes that such a relatively unrestricted access
policy suggests that honorably discharged veterans could be
accommodated by these facilities. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to review the categories of personnel with
AFRC privileges to determine whether those categories should be
broadened to include honorably discharged veterans, and to
report his findings and any recommendations to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 31, 2001.
Lodging Programs
The committee is aware of a recent change in lodging policy
by the Department of Defense (DOD) that all permanent change of
station travel be considered as official travel for the
purposes of on-base lodging. The committee notes this change in
policy will cost Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)
programs alone over $14.0 million annually. The committee is
also concerned that this action essentially donates
approximately $75.0 million soldier dollars invested in bricks
and mortar lodging facilities to appropriated fund accounts. In
the course of attempting to determine the policy reason
underpinning the regulatory change, the committee learned that
the files documenting the reason for this decision could not be
found. DOD officials were thus forced to speculate as to the
actual policy rationale used, but most often have cited
consistency among the military services as the reason. The
committee believes that a shift of this magnitude should be the
subject of open debate, rather than a seemingly arbitrary
decision apparently made in the name of consistency. The
committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense to
review this change in policy, detailing the reasons for the
change, and to submit a plan to hold harmless Army and Marine
Corps MWR by this action to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January
31, 2001.
Nonappropriated Fund Support of Official Activities
The committee is pleased to note that the service
secretaries have at last begun to provide nonappropriated fund
activities with the minimum established standard of
appropriated fund support. The committee expects this trend to
continue. In that regard, the committee heard testimony that
some nonappropriated fund category C activities, which are
generally expected to be self-sustaining, have become essential
elements of command programs on some installations. An example
of this phenomenon is the club system, which is generally
prohibited from receiving appropriated fund support, but which
is frequently used for official functions and training
sessions. The committee notes that previous criticism of club
management practices resulted in stringent restrictions on the
amount of appropriated fund support for these activities. The
committee is concerned that the restrictions are too rigorous,
and that category C activities of all types are unduly
penalized as a result. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to review the support that category C activities
provide to official activities without reimbursement and report
his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 31, 2001.
Other Issues
Army Apprenticeship Program
The committee is concerned that the Department of the Army
has paid little attention to sustaining critical readiness
workforce skills at Army depots. The committee heard testimony
that the majority of skilled workers at these depots will be
eligible to retire by fiscal year 2005, and that there is no
plan to fill these jobs. Many of these workers are highly
proficient craftsmen, possessing skills that take years to
develop under careful supervision. The committee believes that
the Army should establish a program to hire and train new
workers equally capable of repairing complex Army vehicles
andweapons systems. The committee understands that the Secretary of the
Navy operates a successful apprenticeship program in its shipyards to
address a similar shortfall in the Navy.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Army
to establish an apprenticeship program for Army maintenance
depots to address these critical needs and report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 31, 2001, on his plans to implement this
program. In addition, the committee recommends an increase of
$4.4 million as a separate line item in the Department of the
Army's Budget Activity 03 to establish this depot-level
apprenticeship program.
Army Workload and Performance System
The committee has long supported the Department of Defense
in the development of analytical systems based on workload
requirements to support its civilian personnel budget
requirements. The committee commends the Department of the Army
for leading the effort to correct this material weakness in the
staffing requirements determination process by the development
of the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS). Although
slow in its formulation, the committee continues to believe
that AWPS should be the standard functional management system
for all industrial operations and should be adequately funded.
In the committee report on H.R. 3616, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (H. Rept. 105-532), the
Secretary of the Army was required to provide the committee
with a long-range master plan for the implementation of AWPS.
In its review of the AWPS master plan, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) reported to the committee that untimely and
inadequate funding was causing major delays in the full
implementation of AWPS. In addition, the GAO reported that the
Army needs to develop a more detailed master plan that includes
better system cost estimates for future modules, and an
improved management and oversight structure. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to update the AWPS master
plan to incorporate GAO's recommendations and submit a revised
master plan to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1,
2001.
In order to sustain this important program at an adequate
funding level, the committee recommends the addition of $2.0
million specifically for AWPS during fiscal year 2001. The
committee believes that this minimum level of funding is
necessary for AWPS to develop in a timely and effective manner.
Automatic Identification Technology
The committee continues to be concerned with reports of
shortages of repair parts that have necessitated the grounding
of critical aviation assets and other combat equipment, and by
the decrease in mission capable rates due to a combination of
increased maintenance requirements and a lack of spare parts.
Although the committee has increased funding for spare parts
and additional maintenance by nearly $3.5 billion between
fiscal years 1994 and 2000, the committee notes that
improvement trends in these areas show minimal improvements.
The committee understands that Automatic Identification
Technology (AIT), currently being developed by the Department
of the Army, has the potential to provide the needed solutions
to these problems and could significantly improve readiness. As
also discussed elsewhere in this report, AIT would make key
maintenance information available to all participants in the
repair process and would improve productivity and effectiveness
to enhance overall logistics operations. In addition, AIT will
provide connectivity and information to related business
processes such as financial, supply and transportation.
Although Congress included funding for AIT in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, there is no
funding in the budget request for AIT.
Because of the potential to significantly improve readiness
in the military services, the committee recommends the addition
of $4.0 million for the Department of the Army to continue AIT
integration.
Civilian Air Traffic Controllers
The committee notes that civilian air traffic controllers
who are employed by the Federal Aviation Administration are
compensated significantly better than air traffic controllers
who are employed by the Department of Defense (DOD). The
committee understands that the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-50)
established a separate personnel system for the Federal
Aviation Administration, even though DOD air traffic
controllers perform the same work to the same standards. The
committee has learned that this disparity of pay has created a
difficult recruiting and retention challenge for DOD as the
Department strives to maintain safety at military airfields
around the world. The committee is disturbed that the
Department has known about this problem for some time, but has
yet to formulate a solution. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to determine the best method to solve the
Department's recruiting and retention problem for air traffic
controllers and report his recommendations accompanied by any
necessary legislative changes to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January
31, 2001.
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities
The committee continues to believe that the Commercial
Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) program, created
by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 1998 to bring the most
modern and advanced manufacturing capabilities from commercial
industry to depot and related maintenance activities, is
valuable as a technology resource which will have a positive
effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department's
industrial activities. The CTMA program is a by-product of
section 361 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) that required DOD to re-
engineer industrial processes and adopt best-business practices
at their depot-level activities. The committee is concerned
that DOD has not provided funding for this vital and cost-
effective program. Therefore, the committee recommends the
addition of $12.0 million for the Defense Logistics Agency to
pursue strategies for re-engineering at depot-level activities
that will lower operations and sustainment costs. The committee
believes the addition of these funds will allow depot-level
activities to participate in manufacturing technology
demonstration projects in collaboration with more than 220 of
the leading U.S. manufacturers. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that funds for the CTMA program
will be forthcoming in future budget requests.
Container Freight Station Operations
The committee is aware that the Military Traffic Management
Command (MTMC) is presently considering the transfer of
workload from the Container Freight Station (CFS), Norfolk,
Virginia, to the Defense Distribution Center (DDC), New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania. While supportive of the efforts of
MTMC for its efforts to reduce costs, the committee is
concerned that MTMC has not adequately evaluated the potential
adverse impact on fleet operational requirements, contingency
operation flexibility, mission readiness of forward deployed
units, operations at the Military Ocean Terminal, Norfolk,
Virginia, and operations at the Norfolk Naval Air Station. The
committee is also aware that MTMC is conducting a business case
analysis to evaluate the potential impacts of the CFS transfer
on current and future military readiness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services on the results of the MTMC
business case analysis and to assess the effects of the
proposed transfer on military readiness. Further, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to take no action on the
transfer of any existing CFS functions until 180 days after the
submission of this report.
Core Logistics Capabilities
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
is undertaking a study to examine the military logistics
system, including a review of the implementation by the
military departments of core logistics capabilities methodology
as required by section 2464 of title 10, United States Code.
Because the military departments have not had the benefit of
clear policy guidance concerning core logistics, the
implementation of DOD's current core logistics determination
policy has not been consistent. As a result, significant
confusion has developed, which the committee believes has
worked against the most effective capitalization of resources
made available for core logistics activities.
The committee believes that the DOD core logistics study
represents a necessary first step and opportunity to develop
and implement the required policy and methodology on a
consistent basis, and urges the Department to complete the
study as soon as possible. Every effort should be made to
develop a consensus of all those involved on those items that
would be included in any final policy guidance.
Defense Joint Accounting System
As well documented by General Accounting Office, the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense, and other
Department of Defense (DOD) studies, the DOD has had a
longstanding history of poor and inadequate automated financial
accounting systems. DOD has repeatedly indicated a commitment
to financial management reform, part of which is to integrate
and thus reduce the number of financial and accounting systems. In
1996, DOD initiated the Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS), a
financial information management system that supports the general
ledger for general and working capital funds at the installation level.
The committee understands that DJAS will ultimately cost $322 million
to develop and fully deploy. The committee is concerned that the
Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force do not
intend to participate in this program.
The committee has consistently urged DOD and the military
departments to move away from service unique automated
information systems. The DJAS, as its title indicates, appears
to be a financial accounting system that has been designed to
be truly joint. The committee fails to understand why the Navy
and the Air Force have failed to incorporate this joint
accounting system and have decided to retain their own service
specific legacy systems. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services, no later than September 1, 2000, that addresses the
following:
(1) The decision to withdraw the Air Force from DJAS
to include the date of the decision and justification
used;
(2) The impact of the decision to withdraw the Air
Force from DJAS on the projected cost of DJAS; and
(3) The rationale why the Department of the Navy was
not required to participate in this joint program.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services, no later than September 1, 2000, that
address the following:
(1) The specific rationale as to why DJAS will not
meet service needs;
(2) The identification of any business process
reengineering initiatives that were attempted in order
to participate in the DJAS program; and
(3) The accounting systems are currently in use to
support the general ledger, funds control, budget
execution, disbursing, travel, cost accumulation and
asset accounting for general and transportation working
capital funds at the installation level, the level of
funding in fiscal year 2001 to support these systems,
and whether any of the identified systems will migrate
to any other system in the next five years, and if so
identify the new system.
The committee expects that a milestone III decision on DJAS
shall not be made until these reports are submitted.
Defense Personnel Records Imaging System-Electronics Military Personnel
Records System
The committee is concerned with the Defense Personnel
Records Imaging System-Electronics Military Personnel Records
System (DPRIS-EMPRS). DPRIS-EMPRS is an automated imaging
system whereby a digital image replaces the current military
personnel records systems which are stored on obsolete and worn
out microfiche. The committee is concerned that the Department
of the Navy is not adequately committed to DPRIS-EMPRS because
the Navy has not adequately funded this program since fiscal
year 1996. The committee notes that the Navy recently reported
that this automated system is not being properly developed and
implemented, and that an inadequate number of program
management support personnel is the principal cause of problems
in the program. The Navy also reported that the infrastructure
to support the system development, testing, and configuration
management is currently non-existent. The committee, however,
notes the obligation of the Department of Navy to maintain an
adequate personnel-reporting system. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than September 1, 2000, identifying the
strategy for the sustainment of this system.
Department of Defense Civilian Personnel
Personnel safety
The committee is concerned with civilian personnel safety
and notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has a safety and
worker incident rate over twice the rate of comparable
companies in the private sector. The committee further notes
that accidents to federal civilian employees cost the taxpayer
approximately $2.4 billion per year. In the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 2561 (H.
Rept. 106-371), the conferees directed the Secretary of Defense
to initiate programs funded from within existing Operation and
Maintenance accounts at designated DOD facilities that employ
alternative, private sector proven, models of safety to
determine the best ways to improve DOD's record with respect to
injury incidence rates and associated costs. The committee
fully supports this effort and strongly encourages the
Secretary of Defense to initiate expeditiously the required
worker safety enhancement programs to bring the Department of
Defense accident rate more in line with private sector
achievements.
Recruiting and retention
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
(DOD) has not begun the planning necessary to recruit and
retain civilian employees with the technical skills required to
fill the critical jobs of the future. The committee received
testimony from workforce shaping experts that such planning is
essential for large, complex organizations such as DOD. Yet,
the committee continues to receive numerous unofficial requests
for special hiring authorities from various components of DOD
that would solve a particular need for hiring scientific and
engineering personnel.
While the committee desires the Department to attract high
quality scientists and engineers, the committee is disturbed by
the lack of a comprehensive plan to meet this critical need.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a
comprehensive plan to meet these requirements, and to report
his findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
January 31, 2001.
Distance Learning Courseware Development Program
The committee is aware that distance learning technologies
have the potential to benefit the armed forces in many ways.
These technologies enable those stationed or who perform
required duty away from major military installations to
complete required educational courses, receive updates on
important information, and to participate remotely in
operationally-oriented learning activities. In short, the
``anytime-anywhere'' characteristics of distance learning
enable service members, particularly those in the National
Guard and Reserve, to better meet military education, training
and readiness requirements. Such technologies could also have
benefit in new, evolving areas of military endeavor, such as
weapons of mass destruction-related response activities. The
committee anticipates that funds authorized for distance
learning will be used to create web-based courseware to meet
National Guard requirements associated with the development of
weapons of mass destruction response capabilities.
Financial Policy
The committee is aware of circumstances where the military
services have not recorded financial obligations at the time
that their legal obligation is incurred. The committee notes
the established financial management policy of the Department
of Defense (DOD) requires all obligations to be recorded not
later than 10 calendar days following the date the obligation
is incurred. The committee believes that prompt recording of
all obligations is absolutely essential to prudent financial
management. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide further guidance to the military departments and to
take the necessary steps to ensure that all defense agencies
follow DOD guidelines for the accurate and timely recording of
financial obligations.
Local School Renovation and Repair
The committee is concerned that children of military
personnel are forced to attend many local schools around the
country that are falling into disrepair. The committee
understands that school districts that serve a great number of
military families often have difficulty raising bond issues
because the local tax base is constrained by the presence of
large federal reservations. Nevertheless, the committee
believes that failing school infrastructure is a national
problem that is not restricted to local schools serving
children of military personnel, and is therefore not
appropriately solved using Department of Defense funds. The
committee is heartened to learn that the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce has passed the impact aid
reauthorization bill of 2000 (H.R. 3616), which when enacted,
will provide authority for funding these needs. The committee
commends the House Committee on Education and the Workforce for
its farsighted efforts on behalf of all children of the United
States, including the children of military personnel. The
committee agrees that these pressing needs should be addressed
by appropriations authorized by the committees with
jurisdiction over Department of Education funding.
Logistics Support Planning
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) is
implementing a logistics support strategy that is resulting in
actions that move more authority and responsibility for the
performance of logistics support operations from the public to
the private sector. Some of these actions are being taken using
best practices from the private sector and directly applying
them to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of logistics
support operations. In the past, DOD has based many of these
initiatives on a series of studies that promote the outsourcing
of various logistics support activities such as supply and base
level maintenance. The committee understands that these
initiatives are intended to provide resources that can be
applied to the modernization of military systems and equipment.
The committee is concerned, however, that these activities may
or may not be performed more cost-effectively in the private
sector, and to what extent that at least some of these
activities should be retained by the military departments to
support military requirements. In addition, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a series of reports that
question the adequacy of DOD's long-range logistics strategic
planning process. The committee believes that a comprehensive
long-range logistics strategic plan that is in concert with
current statutes and past GAO recommendations will ensure the
best utilization of DOD's current logistical infrastructure.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than February 15, 2001 that addresses the following issues:
(1) An analysis of the various studies that form the
basis for DOD's privatization initiatives to determine
the extent to which these studies provide evidence to
support the cost effectiveness of on-going and proposed
privatization initiatives;
(2) Cost and management data for military systems
managed using contractor logistics support to determine
the extent to which these systems provide information
on cost-effectiveness of this strategy of weapons
system support;
(3) An examination of depot maintenance contracts and
military costs for the same workloads to compare the
cost and responsiveness of both categories of
maintenance support;
(4) An examination of DOD core depot maintenance
policy and its implementation in each of the military
services to determine:
a. How core maintenance policy is being
implemented;
b. The extent to which the military depots
are being allocated workloads to support new
technologies and systems; and
c. The extent to which the DOD depot
maintenance strategy and the implementation of
that strategy is supporting the long-term
viability of the military depots.
(5) An assessment whether source-of-repair decisions
are being made in coordination with all sectors of the
logistics community and whether acquisition officials
are considering total life-cycle costs in weapons
systems purchasing decisions;
(6) The type and extent of usage of waivers to bypass
supportability analyses, including source-of-repair
decisions for developments, modifications, new
acquisitions, and upgrades, and the impact on the field
of these waiver decisions;
(7) An assessment of the current status of the
Department of the Army's merger of logistics into the
acquisition community, including benefits/problems
encountered to date and the validity of the rationale
for the merger; and,
(8) An assessment of the methodology used by DOD in
the formulation of their long-range logistics strategic
plan, and whether the plan conforms with current
statutes.
Military Affiliate Radio System
The committee reiterates its long-standing support for the
Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS), a Department of
Defense-sponsored program that relies on volunteer civilian
amateur radio operators to provide an auxiliary means of
communication in the event of local, national, or international
emergencies. Although the MARS program operates at low cost to
the Department, the committee believes that the Department
continues to underutilize the system and is failing to derive
maximum benefit from it.
With this in mind, the committee urges the Secretary of
Defense take a number of actions to improve the utility of
MARS. Such actions should include:
(1) Increasing the visibility of MARS to senior
military and civil authority leadership;
(2) Incorporating MARS into appropriate contingency
and emergency operations plans;
(3) Increasing the use of MARS as a cost-effective
and viable alternative to commercial telecommunications
for the purposes of troop morale and welfare;
(4) Ensuring that all forward deployed units possess
communications equipment capable of operation on MARS
frequencies; and
(5) Considering the applicability of using MARS as a
low-cost test bed for the evaluation of new
communications technology and equipment.
The committee notes that contemplated changes to
communications modes and frequency allocations between military
and commercial use may negatively impact the ability of MARS to
fulfill its auxiliary communications role in the event of
emergency. The committee also notes that section 1062 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106-65) prevented the commercial use of certain frequencies
previously assigned to the federal government and used
primarily by the Department of Defense, and further required an
interagency review prior to the commercial reallocation of
frequencies currently used by the Department. The committee
encourages the Department to ensure that issues related to MARS
frequency allocations are addressed in connection with any
review of emergency response mission requirements.
National Maintenance Program
The committee commends the Secretary of the Army for
addressing the critical maintenance needs of the Army with the
establishment of the National Maintenance Program (NMP) and the
inclusion in the budget request of $16.8 million as an
incremental step to execute this program worldwide. While the
Army is making significant progress in developing the NMP, as
well as developing other needed organizational changes such as
the Depot Maintenance Corporate Board, further improvements are
needed. The committee continues to believe that the Army needs
an effective total depot maintenance and repair program to
sustain readiness. For example, the Army still cannot identify
the total amount of depot-level maintenance work conducted at
field locations. Depot-level maintenance work is currently
being performed by civilians and active duty personnel in
military units, by contractors in various field locations, as
well as in the public depots. Until the Army is able to
distinguish and account for depot-level maintenance workloads
from other work performed by organizations outside of the
established maintenance depots, it is unclear how the Army can
realistically comply with existing statutes, including section
2466 of Title 10, United States Code.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Service by February 1, 2001 that
identifies the proliferation of depot-level maintenance that is
performed outside of the public depots. The committee further
requests that the Comptroller General of the United States
review this report and provide an analysis, including an
assessment of the Army's ability to comply with section 2466 of
title 10 United States Code, to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31,
2001.
Naval Audit Service
The committee supports the Department of Defense and the
military services to implement initiatives to become more
efficient and more cost effective. As an example, the
Department of the Navy plans to reorganize and consolidate the
Naval Audit Service. The committee supports this reorganization
to the extent that there is efficiency to be gained and all
applicable rules, regulations, and statutes are followed. The
committee questions, however, whether it would be efficient and
economical for the Department of Navy to close audit sites in
major fleet concentration areas. The committee, therefore,
directs the Secretary of the Navy to inform the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services of any decision to close audit sites in major fleet
concentration areas, and to submit documentation to support
this decision, within 10 days of such a decision being made.
Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
take no action to implement such a decision until 180 days
after the Congressional notification.
Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS)
The committee notes that the Reserve Component Automation
System (RCAS) is a system critical to the day-to-day
operational capabilities and mobilization of the Army National
Guard and the Army Reserve. The committee is concerned that
without continued support and modernization, the Army Reserve
could experience a serious deterioration in readiness. The
committee is further concerned that the Army has allocated only
limited funding for the RCAS program in the future years
defense program. In order to ensure this program continues to
enable the effective administrative support and mobilization
capability required by the reserve components, the committee
expects the Department of the Army to program sufficient funds
for RCAS. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report not later that March 1, 2001 to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services detailing
programmed funds for RCAS for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
Spare and Repair Parts
The committee continues to be concerned by reports of
persistent shortages of spare and repair parts throughout the
military services. The committee believes that one of the
primary causes of unacceptable reliability rates, especially
for operational unit aircraft, is the shortage of spare repair
parts. The status of critical Air Force C-5 aircraft repair and
spare parts is illustrative of the committee's concern. The C-5
remains a key asset in air mobility and the airlifting of heavy
equipment and personnel to both military contingencies and
humanitarian relief efforts around the world. While the Air
Force has identified several problem areas, and has begun to
implement actions that are intended to mitigate this problem,
the committee continues to receive reports of spare and repair
parts backlogs and repeated parts cannibalization of air-worthy
C-5 aircraft.
The committee is concerned whether the Air Force will be
able to meet all of its commitments in the future without
addressing its parts shortfall problems. As such, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services no later than January 31, 2001 and again on September
30, 2001 on the overall status of the Air Force spare and
repair parts program, with a specific emphasis on the C-5
aircraft, to include whether the necessary resources are
programmed to address future spare and repair parts
requirements.
Urban Warfare Training
The committee notes favorably the recent assessment
conducted by General Accounting Office of the Department of
Defense's (DOD) urban warfare training. The committee is
concerned about significant shortfalls in the areas of joint
experimentation, joint training and training facilities, and
intelligence. The committee is aware that joint
experimentation, which is designed to systematically evaluate
what new doctrine, organizations, and equipment are needed for
urban operations, is not taking place. Although urban
operations will likely involve larger units such as battalions
and brigades, the military services continue to concentrate
their urban training on individual soldiers and small units,
such as squads, platoons, and companies.
The committee supports the recommendation of the GAO that
the Secretary of Defense should designate a single entity to
lead and coordinate Joint Staff and service efforts to improve
capabilities to conduct urban operations. The committee
believes that the current Joint Urban Working Group does not
have the resources or authority necessary to ensure the
necessary coordination in this area.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to designate an appropriate executive agent with the authority
to develop and coordinate a master plan for a DOD-wide
strategy, with milestones, for improving service and joint
capabilities to conduct military operations in urban
environments. The committee further directs the Secretary of
Defense to report on such a master plan to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 1, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize $______ million in operations
and maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense.
Section 302--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize $______ million for Working
Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would authorize $69.832 million from the Armed
Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer not more than $150.0 million from the amounts received
from sales in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military
services.
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions
Section 311--Payment of Fines and Penalties Imposed for Environmental
Violations
This section would authorize the secretary of the army and
the Secretary of the Navy to pay for specific environmental
violations at several locations within the united states.
Section 312--Necessity of Military Low-Level Flight Training to Protect
National Security and Enhance Military Readiness
This section would mandate that the environmental impact
statements previously completed for special use airspace
designated by a military department, for the performance of
low-level training flights, satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (title 42, United
States Code).
Section 313--Use of Environmental Restoration Accounts to Relocate
Activities from Defense Environmental Restoration Sites
This section would amend section 2703 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize environmental restoration funds to be
obligated or expended in order to permanently relocate
facilities on land under the control of the Department of
Defense, or formerly under control of the Department, if there
is a release of a hazardous material on the land, and the
Department is obligated to cleanup and restore the land. This
new authority would be in effect for the next three fiscal
years.
Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
Section 321--Use of Appropriated Funds to Cover Operating Expenses of
Commissary Stores
This section would provide that funds appropriated for the
operation of the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) may be used
for salaries, utilities, communications, operating supplies and
services, second destination transportation costs, and above
store level costs.
The committee notes that the surcharge fund currently
supports several of these items. The committee is concerned
that since the surcharge must pay operational expenses first,
little or no funds remain to provide for store maintenance and
replacement. The committee believes that appropriated funds are
the correct funding source for commissary store operating
costs, leaving to the commissary patron the responsibility of
providing for capital replacement through payment of the
surcharge. The committee expects, however, that DECA will
aggressively pursue efficiencies that will result in no
increase in the requirement for appropriated fund support.
Section 322--Adjustment of Sales Prices of Commissary Store Goods and
Services to Cover Certain Expenses
This section would clarify that commissary store prices
shall include the cost of first destination transportation of
the goods to the stores and the actual or estimated cost of
shrinkage, spoilage, and pilferage of merchandise under the
control of commissary stores. The committee notes that the
Defense Commissary Agency has an exceptional record in
controlling shrinkage and expects that high standard to
continue.
Section 323--Use of Surcharges for Construction and Improvement of
Commissary Stores
This section would limit the responsibility of the patrons
to finance the commissary system with their surcharge dollars
to store replacement and maintenance only, putting the
surcharge fund on sound financial footing. This section would
provide that funds received from the surcharge on the price of
goods sold in commissary storesshall be used exclusively for
construction and maintenance of commissary stores and central product
processing facilities.
The committee notes that the surcharge currently is
responsible to fund these items, as well as other expenses such
as utilities, operating supplies, and Defense Commissary Agency
wide information technology. The committee notes further that
the surcharge is unable to meet these expenses and still
provide for the maintenance and replacement of older stores.
The committee believes that commissaries are an essential non-
pay benefit for the nation's service members, retirees, and
their families; and that a system of commissary stores bereft
of capital funding is not a true benefit.
Section 324--Inclusion of Magazines and Other Periodicals as an
Authorized Commissary Merchandise Category
This section would remove magazines and periodicals as
items that may be sold in commissary stores as noncommissary
store inventory and add magazines and periodicals to the list
of authorized commissary store merchandise.
The committee believes that military patrons rightfully
expect to find magazines and periodicals at the checkout
counter, as is the practice in commercial grocery stores. The
committee understands that this change will provide extra
funding to the commissary surcharge fund through increased
sales with little impact on military exchange sales.
Section 325--Use of Most Economical Distribution Method for Distilled
Spirits
This section would amend section 2488 of title 10, United
States Code, to repeal the restriction on the procurement of
distilled spirits from a private distributor by nonappropriated
fund instrumentalities if the use of a private distributor
results in direct or indirect state taxation.
The committee notes that in some instances nonappropriated
fund instrumentalities are currently compelled to make less
than optimal purchases in order to avoid state taxes. The
committee urges nonappropriated fund instrumentalities to
explore the most economical means of procurement of all
products intended for resale.
Section 326--Report on Effects of Availability of Slot Machines on
United States Military Installations Overseas
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
report to Congress the effect that the military services' slot
machine operations overseas have on military community life and
service members' personal financial stability.
Subtitle D--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources
Section 331--Inclusion of Additional Information in Reports to Congress
Required before Conversion of Commercial or Industrial Type Functions
to Contractor Performance
This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide
Congress additional information on studies concerning the
change of performance of Department of Defense functions by
civilian personnel to performance by the private sector. The
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to identify
when outsourcing studies were initiated, how the results of the
study will affect the government workforce, and a certification
that necessary funds have been specifically included in a
budget request to perform the study.
Section 332--Limitation Regarding Navy Marine Corps Intranet Contract
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
using FY2001 funds for payment of a long-term contract for
comprehensive end-to-end information services until supporting
documentation is provided to Congress.
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy's
initiative, known as the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI), is
an effort to acquire information technology that would require
a private sector contractor to own and maintain all Navy and
Marine Corps desktop computers, network hardware, and software,
and to provide all other required information technology
services. The proposed transfer of responsibility from the Navy
to the private sector is to be achieved through a ``seat
management'' contract. The committee notes that the Navy's
expected contract for at least 360,000 seats would exceed all
prior government contracting experience.
The committee recognizes the Navy's requirement for
seamless and interoperable data, voice, and video
communications. The committee, however, is quite concerned with
the Navy's overall approach to this multi-billion dollar
initiative. First, of utmost concern, is the Navy's failure to
present Congress with any documentation in the budget request
for this initiative. In pursuit of this initiative the Navy has
circumvented internal financial management regulations and
Office of Management and Budget requirements. Despite repeated
requests, the Navy has not identified what funds will be used
in the procurement of the Navy Marine Corps Intranet. The
committee is concerned by the Navy's failure to provide basic
funding information when the Navy plans to award a multi-
billion contract in fiscal year 2000. This section would
prohibit the use of FY2001 funds for NMCI until the Navy
provides Congress the specific funding requirements for the
NMCI contract.
The committee expects that if the Navy enters into the NMCI
contract, that in future year budget submissions the Navy will
comply with all planning and budgeting documents.
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education
Section 341--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees
This section would authorize $35.0 million for educational
assistance to local education agencies where the standard for
the minimum level of education within the state could not be
maintained because of the large number of military connected
students. The committee's long-standing commitment to the
children of military personnel has provided significant
assistance to their education.
The committee acknowledges that the Department of Education
impact aid program provides supplementary funds to eligible
school districts nationwide, and the committee believes that
the Department of Education should continue to asserts its
leading role to provide federal support for the educational
needs of the children of military personnel.
Section 342--Eligibility Requirements for Attendance at Department of
Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
permit a student who is a dependent of an employee of the
American Red Cross performing armed forces emergency services
on a full-time basis to enroll in Department of Defense
domestic schools located in Puerto Rico on a reimbursable
basis. The committee notes that children of Red Cross employees
stationed in overseas areas are currently authorized to enroll
in Department of Defense overseas schools on a reimbursable
basis. The committee believes that similarly-situated
dependents of American Red Cross employees in Puerto Rico
should have similar privileges.
Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues
Section 351--Additional Capabilities of, and Reporting Requirements
for, the Readiness Reporting System
This section would amend section 117 of title 10, United
States Code to include an annual report detailing the funding
programmed for deficiencies identified in the Joint Monthly
Readiness Review process. Currently, section 117 requires the
Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a quarterly
report detailing the readiness of military units. Although
generally satisfied with the information provided by this
report, the committee believes there should be additional
information included to provide an indication that adequate
funding is being programmed for identified military readiness
and capability deficiencies. This section would provide
Congress with more visibility of the existence of these
readiness deficiencies and the programmed funding to rectify
these known deficiencies.
This section would also require the reporting of the amount
of cannibalization performed on vehicles and aircraft during
the quarter and the efforts being made to decrease the amount
of cannibalization required. The committee is concerned with
the increasing amount of cannibalization that takes place in
each of the service's maintenance programs due to the chronic
shortage of spare and replacement parts. The committee
continues to hear of numerous occasions where aircraft sit in
hangars and are used for spare parts, which are unavailable
through normal parts requisition channels. The cannibalization
of parts creates extra work for an already overworked
maintenance crew and often leads to the damage of other parts
in the process.
Section 352--Reporting Requirements Regarding Transfers from High-
Priority Readiness Appropriations
This section would amend section 483 of title 10, United
States Code, which currently requires an annual report to
Congress on any transfers from several specified high-priority
readiness accounts. This section would extend the requirement
for this report and expands the report to include additional
high priority sub-activity groups.
In recent years, the Department of Defense has improved the
information it gives to Congress on the movement of Operations
and Maintenance (O&M) funds. The report, submitted pursuant to
section 483, has been useful to the committee in trying to
understand the transfers of funds from several critical
readiness accounts. The committee believes that extending and
expanding the requirement for this report would continue to be
helpful in reviewing the transfer of funds within operation and
maintenance accounts.
Section 353--Department of Defense Strategic Plan to Reduce Backlog in
Maintenance and Repair of Defense Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop an overall strategic plan for the maintenance, repair,
and sustainment of facilities and infrastructure of the
Department of Defense (DOD) to include a comprehensive strategy
for facilities revitalization, replacement, demolition of
unusable facilities, and sustainment maintenance tied to
measurable goals, specified time frames, and expected funding
in the five year defense plan. The provision would require the
plan to be submitted to the Congressional defense committees by
March 15, 2001, and be updated annually.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
and the military services do not have complete, reliable
information on the cost associated with either maintaining
their current facilities infrastructure or the cost associated
with various infrastructure reduction options. Such information
is critical to the development of a department-wide strategic
plan that considers difficult options for the care and
maintenance of essential facilities and infrastructure. The
committee is also concerned that the complete disclosure of
costs associated with facilities' deferred maintenance and
repair and demolition cannot be adequately calculated without
such a plan.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 361--Authority to Ensure Demilitarization of Significant
Military Equipment Formerly Owned by the Department of Defense
This section would amend chapter 153 of title 10, United
States Code to allow the Secretary of Defense to recover
significant military equipment that has been released by the
Department of Defense without proper demilitarization. Section
1051 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) identified the need
for the Department of Defense to improve demilitarization of
excess and surplus defense property. This section would clarify
the authority of the United States to recover critical and
sensitive defense property that has been inadequately
demilitarized.
Section 362--Annual Report on Public Sale of Certain Military Equipment
Identified on United States Munitions List
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
report annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services on excess military items
sold to the public. The report would list all items sold to the
public that were included on the United States Munitions List
and labeled with a Department of Defense (DOD) demilitarization
code of ``B''. Demilitarization code ``B'' is placed on any
item of inventory that is included on the United States
Munitions List and for which the Department of Defense does not
require demilitarization before the item is sold to the public.
The committee is concerned that once again sales of excess
military items may have been diverted to uses and individuals
that could be harmful to national security. The committee is
aware of a recent case in which individuals were indicted for
illegally exporting items on the munitions list to China
without the required export license. The committee understands
that the items included export-controlled electronic parts for
missiles and military aircraft.
Section 363--Registration of Certain Information Technology Systems
with Chief Information Officer
This section would require that for the next three fiscal
years all mission essential and mission critical information
technology system be registered with the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Defense.
Section 364--Studies and Reports Required as Precondition to Certain
Manpower Reductions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services prior to the initiation
of any civilian manpower reductions at any organizations within
the Department of Defense. A separate report would also be
required once a decision has been made to consolidate,
restructure, or reengineer an organization or function within
the Department.
Section 365--National Guard Assistance for Certain Youth and Charitable
Organizations
This section would amend section 508 of title 32, United
States Code to include an additional youth organization, known
as Reach for Tomorrow, to the list of youth and charitable
organizations that are eligible for assistance by the National
Guard.
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
The committee's military personnel recommendations have
four major complementary goals that, taken together, will
advance and help to sustain the manpower readiness of the all-
volunteer force. Those four goals are to:
(1) Reform the Defense Health Program (DHP) to
improve the TRICARE managed care program; to achieve
savings in the DHP through management and process
changes; to provide access for all Medicare-eligible
military retirees to a pharmacy benefit; and to set the
stage for the near-term implementation of a permanent
health care program for Medicare-eligible military
retirees.
(2) Continue improvements in the economic well-being
of military personnel and their families--a long term
effort begun last year by the committee--through both
targeted and broad-based pay and benefits initiatives
that put real dollars in the pockets of soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines.
(3) Assist the armed services in the demanding task
of attracting and retaining sufficient numbers of
quality personnel.
(4) Provide targeted increases in active and reserve
military manpower where such increases improve
readiness or otherwise directly facilitate the
recruiting effort.
A fundamental challenge facing the committee in achieving
these goals was that the President's budget request was clearly
inadequate in several key aspects and required substantial
enhancement.
With regard to health care, for example, the budget request
failed to support the commitment of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to provide health care reform for military
retirees. To fulfill that commitment and to make substantial
progress toward defining permanently future military retiree
health care, the committee recommends a retail and mail order
pharmacy benefit for all Medicare-eligible military retirees
and their families. The committee also is committed to renewing
TRICARE Senior Prime (the Medicare subvention demonstration
program) that the Department of Defense would have allowed to
expire this year, and extending the two other demonstration
programs--TRICARE Senior Supplement and the Federal Employees
Health Benefit Program. In addition, believing that final
decisions must soon be made to define the military health care
benefit for Medicare-eligibles, the committee recommends a
process to implement a permanent benefit in 2004. To fund the
pharmacy benefit and other health care initiatives, including
DHP reforms designed to reduce spending by as much as $500.0
million over the next five years, the committee recommends an
increase of over $286.0 million to the DHP.
With regard to its longstanding effort to improve the
economic viability of service members and their families, the
committee again went beyond the welcome, but limited,
initiatives contained in the budget request. For example, the
committee authorizes a targeted subsistence payment, and $5.0
million, that is designed to assist the most economically
challenged service personnel--those living off post and
receiving food stamps. To more comprehensively address the
economic difficulties confronting junior enlisted people, the
committee also authorizes $30.0 million and requires an upward
revision of minimum housing standards. Also, the committee
provides $30.0 million, an increase of nearly 19 percent over
the budget request to accelerate the reduction in service
members' out-of-pocket housing costs, and $6.0 million to
establish a minimumdislocation allowance. This latter measure,
targeting junior enlisted military personnel, would begin to reduce the
substantial out-of-pocket costs military people experience while
moving. Moreover, despite numerous other proposals in the President's
budget request that both increased and reduced entitlement spending,
the budget request gave no priority to the entitlement spending needed
to allow service members to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan
(TSP). To rectify this significant shortfall, the committee, building
on the funding provided in the conference agreement on the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, authorizes service
members to begin enrolling in TSP.
Being aware of the severe and continuing challenges facing
each of the military services in their mutual goal of
sustaining the all-volunteer force with sufficient numbers of
quality personnel, the committee is disturbed to learn that
most service budget requests for fiscal year 2001 reflect
either steady state or decreased funding from fiscal year 2000
when measured in the investment per recruit, or in select
critical recruiting accounts, and that the recruiting and
retention budget shortfalls identified by the services amount
to more than $700.0 million. Furthermore, the current Deputy
Secretary of Defense testified to the committee that the
services deliberately underfunded recruiting and retention,
with the expectation that Congress would step up to fill the
shortfalls.
This information directly affected the committee's decision
regarding funding allocations for the services' recruiting and
retention. First, where in the past the committee has willingly
provided added resources to meet much of the services' unfunded
requirements, this year the committee recommends additional
funding for less than one third of the shortfall, an increase
of $217.6 million. Second, the recommended additional funding
gives priority to enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, rather
than recruiting advertising because bonuses not only are highly
effective at drawing and retaining people, but they also put
money into service members' pockets. The committee strongly
urges the military services to resolve the remaining fiscal
year 2001 recruiting and retention requirements in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request.
Finally, in an effort to overcome the manpower shortfalls
contained in the budget request for both the active and reserve
components, the committee authorizes nearly 650 additional
active duty Navy personnel, and a total of nearly 2,900 full
time support personnel in the Army National Guard, the Army
Reserve, Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September
30, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 FY 2001 Change from
Service authorized FY 2001 committee FY 2001
& floor request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..................................................... 480,000 480,000 480,000 0
Navy..................................................... 372,037 372,000 372,642 642
USMC..................................................... 172,518 172,600 172,600 0
USAF..................................................... 360,877 357,000 357,000 0
DOD...................................................... 1,385,432 1,381,600 1,382,242 642
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee, responding to the critical manpower
shortfall identified by the Chief of Naval Operations,
recommends an increase in Navy end strength by 642 above the
requested level. The increase will provide 500 recruiters, as
well as 142 personnel for the crew of the U.S.S. Houston that
the Navy intends to retain in the force structure. To support
the additional end strength, the committee authorizes an
increase of $18.5 million in Navy military personnel accounts.
Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels
This section would amend section 691 of title 10, United
States Code, by establishing end strength floors for the active
forces at the end strengths contained in the budget request.
The committee is surprised that each of the active and
reserve components of the Air Force are projected to end fiscal
year 2000 below the strengths authorized by law. The committee
notes that the Congressional Budget Office projects that the
active Air Force could have a shortfall of up to 4,700, the Air
National Guard a shortfall of up to 3,200, and the Air Force
Reserve a shortfall of as much as 2,300. If these predictions
should become fact, the active Air Force will violate the
statutory end strength floor for a second consecutive year. The
existence of these projected shortfalls in the Air Force is
surprising because Congress provided, in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 105-65) and
the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law
106-79) the full funding requested by the Department of Defense
to sustain end strengths at the requested levels, as well as
additional funding beyond the budget request for recruiting and
retention initiatives. While the committee applauds the recent
Air Force decision to launch major short-term initiatives to
stave off active component recruiting and retention shortfalls
in fiscal year 2000, the committee believes that the
fundamental cause of the projected fiscal year 2000 end
strength shortfalls is a lack of early full commitment by the
Department of the Air Force to sustain required manpower levels
with adequate resources.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that
future budget requests comply with the requirements of section
691 of title 10, United States Code, and to provide the full
funding required to sustain active and reserve end strengths at
the levels required by law.
Section 403--Adjustment to End Strength Flexibility Authority
This section would authorize the Secretary to reduce the
end strength below the floor in cases where the authorized end
strength was higher than the floor. Section 691(e) of title 10,
United States Code, provides authority to the Secretary of
Defense to reduce by one-half of one per cent the authorized
end strength of a service when the statutorily authorized end
strength is equal to the end strength floor established in law.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for the selected reserve personnel, including the end strength
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves, as of
September 30, 2001:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 Change from
Service FY 2000 FY 2001 committee FY 2001
authorized request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................................... 350,000 350,000 350,706 706
Army Reserve............................................. 205,000 205,000 205,300 300
Naval Reserve............................................ 90,288 88,900 88,900 0
Marine Corps Reserve..................................... 39,624 39,500 39,558 58
Air National Guard....................................... 106,678 108,000 108,000 0
Air Force Reserve........................................ 73,708 74,300 74,358 58
Coast Guard Reserve...................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 0
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 873,298 873,700 874,822 1,122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of
September 30, 2001:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change from
Service FY 2000 FY 2001 Committee FY 2001
authorized request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................................... 22,430 22,448 23,154 706
Army Reserve............................................. 12,804 12,806 13,106 300
Naval Reserve............................................ 15,010 14,649 14,649 0
Marine Corps Reserve..................................... 2,272 2,203 2,261 58
Air National Guard....................................... 11,157 11,148 11,148 0
Air Force Reserve........................................ 1,134 1,278 1,336 58
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 64,807 64,532 65,654 1,122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee believes that full time manning is a crucial
component of readiness in the reserve components and therefore
recommends an increase of 1,122 above the requested end
strength for reserves on active duty to support the reserve
components. To support the increase, the committee authorizes
an additional $37.5 million.
Section 413--End Strength for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30,
2001:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 Committee Change from
Service authorized FY 2001 recommendation FY 2001
(floor) request (floor) request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................................... 23,125 22,357 23,392 1,035
Army Reserve............................................. 6,474 5,271 5,921 650
Air National Guard....................................... 22,247 22,221 22,247 26
Air Force Reserve........................................ 9,785 9,733 9,785 52
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 61,631 59,582 61,345 1,763
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee recommends an increase of 1,763 in the
requested end strength for military technicians (dual status).
The bulk of the increase is to meet high priority manning
shortfalls in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. To
support the increases, the committee authorizes a total
increase of $51.0 million to the civilian personnel pay
accounts of those two components.
The committee is aware that some of the military services
have attempted to reduce civilian personnel funding for
technicians in the belief that because the annual defense
authorization act does not specifically authorize end strength
for non-dual status technicians, the committee is suggesting
that non-dual status technicians should not be funded. To the
contrary, the committee believes that the civilian personnel
accounts ofthe military services must fund not only the
military technician (dual status) end strength authorized above, but
also the end-strength for the non-dual status technician end strength
indicated below:
Service FY 2001 request
Army National Guard............................................... 1,600
Army Reserve...................................................... 997
Air National Guard................................................ 326
Air Force Reserve................................................. 0
______
Total......................................................... 2,923
Section 414--Increase in Number of Members in Certain Grades Authorized
To Be on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves
This section would authorize increases in the grades of
reserve members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-
time national guard duty for the administration of the reserves
or the national guard. The section would authorize 20
additional colonels, 82 additional lieutenant colonels, 138
additional majors, 97 additional E-9s, and 90 additional E-8s
in the Air Force. This section would also authorize 76
additional colonels, 219 additional lieutenant colonels, 178
additional majors, 221 additional E-9s, and 373 additional E-8s
in the Army. The committee believes these increases are
necessary to support the additional missions now being
performed by the reserve components.
The committee notes that the increases listed above would
be the third consecutive year in which the grade tables were
adjusted for reserve officers on active duty in support of the
reserves. The committee recognizes that section 555 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106-65) expanded the roles that could be performed by
reserve officers on active duty in support of the reserves and
that there would be new requirements for career progression for
these officers. The committee believes a comprehensive solution
for the controlled grades is now necessary.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to study the grades assigned to reserve officers on active duty
in support of the reserves and to recommend a permanent
solution for managing the grade structure for those officers.
In developing his recommendations, the Secretary should
consider the following areas during the study:
(1) The grade structure authorized for the active
duty forces and the reasons why the grade structure for
reserve officers on active duty in support of the
reserves is different;
(2) The need for independent grade limits for each
reserve component;
(3) The potential for repealing the current grade
tables in favor of a system that would manage grades
based on the grade authorized for the position occupied
by the service member; and
(4) The current mix within each reserve component of
traditional reservists, military/civilian technicians,
regular component officers, and reserve officers on
active duty in support of the reserves in each
controlled grade and how that mix for each component
would shift over time under the Secretary's recommended
solution.
The committee further directs the Secretary to report on
his findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 31, 2001.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel
This section would authorize $75,801.7 million to be
appropriated for military personnel.
This authorization of appropriations reflects both
reductions and increases to the budget request that are
itemized below.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military
personnel O&M
accounts accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED INCREASES
Active End Strength: ......... .........
Navy:
Add Recruiters (500)...................... $15.0 .........
USS Houston (142)......................... 3.5 .........
RC End Strength:
Army National Guard:
Add AGR's (706)........................... 23.5 .........
Add Military Technicians (Dual Status) ......... $30.5
(1035)...................................
Army Reserve:
Add AGR's (300)........................... 10.0 .........
Add Military Technicians (Dual Status) ......... 20.5
(650)....................................
Air Force Reserve:
Add AGR Recruiters (50)................... 1.7 .........
Add Red Horse AGR's (8)................... 0.4 .........
USMC Reserve Add ARs (58)..................... 1.9 .........
Compensation
Change Minimum Housing Standards for BAH...... 30.0 .........
Accelerate Buydown of Out-of-Pocket Housing 30.0 .........
Costs........................................
Increase Minimum Dislocation Allowance........ 6.0 .........
Special Subsistence Stipend................... 5.0 .........
Reimburse Pet Quarantine Fees................. 1.0 .........
Recruiting & Retention:
Army:
Enlistment Bonus.......................... 50.0 .........
Senior ROTC Recruiting.................... ......... 7.0
Army National Guard Enlistment Bonus.......... 12.0
Army Reserve:
Recruiting Advertising.................... ......... 9.0
Additional Recruiters..................... 1.0 .........
Enlistment Bonus.......................... 12.0 .........
College First................................. 5.0 .........
Navy Enlistment Bonus......................... 24.0 .........
Navy Reserve:
Recruiting Advertising.................... ......... 3.7
Recruiter Support......................... ......... 3.0
Non-prior Svc Enlistment Bonus............ 2.4 .........
USMC:
Enlistment Bonus.......................... 4.0 .........
Selective Reenlistment Bonus.............. 4.0 .........
College Fund.............................. 4.4 .........
Recruiting Advertising.................... ......... 7.5
Recruiter Support......................... ......... 0.6
USMC Reserve Recruiting Advertising........... ......... 2.0
Air Force:
Enlistment Bonus.......................... 7.5 .........
Selective Reenlistment Bonus.............. 29.0 .........
College-to-USAF Enl. Program.............. 6.0 .........
Air Guard:
Recruiter Support......................... ......... 3.5
Recruiting Advertising.................... ......... 6.0
AF Reserve:
Tuition Assistance........................ 5.2 .........
Air Reserve Technician Pilot Retention ......... 5.0
Bonus....................................
AGR Pilot Retention Bonus................. 3.8 .........
Senior ROTC:
Open Air Force Senior ROTC Detachment......... ......... 0.4
Other Issues:
Army Reserve Funeral Honors................... ......... 3.0
Naval Reserve:
Reserve Annual Training................... 2.4 .........
Reserve ADT (CINC Support)................ 13.4 .........
Reserve ADT (Schools)..................... 4.4 .........
ADSW (Voluntary Support).................. 1.2 .........
Inactive Duty for Training Travel......... 3.5 .........
USMC Reserve Active Duty for Special Work..... 3.0 .........
USMC Staffing for Voluntary Education Programs ......... 4.0
International Student Program at Senior ......... 2.0
Military Colleges............................
Recruiter-High School Guidance Counselor ......... 2.0
Internet Connection..........................
Defense Health Program:
Fund Study of DHP Accrual..................... ......... 2.0
Fund Study of Medicare Eligible Health Options ......... 2.0
Feasibility Study DOD/VA Joint Research ......... 2.5
Facility.....................................
Modernize TRICARE Management/Increase Use of ......... 134.5
Treatment Facilities.........................
Reimburse travel expenses for long-distance ......... 15.0
referrals....................................
Reduce Catastrophic Cap for Retirees.......... ......... 32.0
TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Benefit............... ......... 94.0
Chiropractic Services for Active Duty ......... 3.0
Personnel....................................
Telemedicine Radiology Demonstration.......... ......... 1.5
---------------------
Total Recommended Additions............. 326.2 396.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military
personnel O&M
accunts accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS
Active Component Strength and Grade
Underexecution:
Army.......................................... $5.3 .........
USMC.......................................... 16.0 .........
Air Force..................................... 59.6 .........
Reserve Component Strength, Grade and Drill
Underexecution:
Army National Guard........................... 4.2 .........
USMC Reserve.................................. 0.7 .........
Air National Guard............................ 1.0 .........
Air Force Reserve............................. 8.1 .........
DOD Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund.... 17.0 .........
Defense Health Program Foreign Military Training.. ......... $10.0
Unemployment Compensation:
Army.......................................... 2.1 .........
Navy.......................................... 1.4 .........
Marine Corps.................................. 0.7 .........
Air Force..................................... 0.6 .........
Foreign Currency Fluctuation:
Army.......................................... 73.3 .........
Navy.......................................... 45.4 .........
Marine Corps.................................. 4.8 .........
Air Force..................................... 86.0 .........
Defense Health................................ ......... 15.4
---------------------
Total Recommended Reductions................ 326.2 25.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office
The committee notes that section 1501 of title 10, United
States Code, charges the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in
Action Office (DPMO) with broad responsibilities throughout the
Department of Defense concerning policy, control, and oversight
of the process for the investigation and recovery of missing
persons. The committee has learned that DPMO is developing a
strategic plan intended to serve as a roadmap for all elements
of the Department in carrying out those important
responsibilities. However, the committee is concerned that the
strategic plan envisions a lessening of ongoing efforts to
account for the thousands of service members still unaccounted
for in previous wars. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to consult the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services before implementing any
plan that would reduce the current level of effort to account
for missing personnel.
The committee further notes that the Secretary of Defense
has published directives implementing the Missing Persons Act
(section 569 of Public Law 104-106), as amended. However, the
committee is disappointed that the directives do not provide a
means to inform family members of the existence of classified
information that could pertain to one or more missing persons
as required by section 1506(d) of title 10, United States Code.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to incorporate
the procedures required by law into a revised directive by
December 1, 2000.
Department of Defense International Student Program at the Military
Colleges
The committee, despite working cooperatively last year with
Department of Defense (DOD) officials to incorporate the Senior
Military Colleges (SMC) into the DOD international student
program in a manner to allow the Secretary of Defense to expand
the impact and scope of that program, was severely disappointed
that the fiscal year 2001 budget request did not include funds
for the SMC international student program. The committee,
therefore, authorizes $2.0 million for the Secretary of Defense
to carry out the SMC international student program and directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide funding to the program from
funds, other than those for the Senior ROTC program, made
available to the Secretary for fiscal year 2001. The committee
also strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to fund this
program in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Funding for Recruiting and Retention
The committee continues to be concerned about the ability
of the services to recruit and retain a quality force, as well
as the apparent unwillingness or inability of the armed
services to adequately resource their recruiting and retention
programs. Furthermore, based on testimony presented to the
committee, it appears that the armed services are taking
advantage of Congressional support for recruiting and retention
by underfunding their budget requests with the expectation that
additional resources for recruiting and retention will be
provided in the authorization and appropriations process.
Congressional support for recruiting and retention has been
substantial, with over $400.0 million in additional funding to
recruiting accounts alone provided by Congress over the last
three years. In addition, Congress crafted the extensive pay
and retirement reforms enacted by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
Despite this support, the committee notes that the active
Army, the Army Reserve, the active Navy, the Naval Reserve, the
active Air Force, and the Air Force Reserve all failed to
achieve recruiting objectives in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal
year 2000, the armed services continue to experience difficulty
in recruiting due to increased college attendance, reduced
youth population, and record low unemployment rates, with all
components of the Air Force (active, national guard and
reserve), the Army Reserve and the Naval Reserve unlikely to
meet recruiting goals. Additionally, the active Army, the
active Marine Corps and active Navy will be severely challenged
to do so.
Similarly, the armed services continue to experience
difficulty in retaining personnel with certain technical skills
and within units burdened with high operations tempo.
Additionally, both the active component Air Force and the
active component Navy failed to meet retention objectives
across all segments of the enlisted force during fiscal year
1999, and are unlikely to achieve those retention objectives in
fiscal year 2000.
The committee believes that DOD's inadequate funding for
recruiting and retention programs only exacerbates the
recruiting and retention difficulties. For example, following
the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2001, the
armed services reported $704.0 million in unfunded requirements
in recruiting and retention programs. Additionally, the budget
request included examples for each of the armed services,
including both active and reserve components, of recruiting and
retention accounts that were funded at considerably lower
levels for fiscal year 2001 than what the armed services
expected to execute during fiscal year 2000. The committee
concludes from these facts that inadequate defense budgets have
forced the service secretaries into tough choices, with
recruiting and retention getting a lower priority than other
programs. The committee believes that the low priority placed
on recruiting and retention programs by budget managers can be
attributed in part to the presumption that Congress will add
the needed resources that the secretaries concerned are
unwilling or unable to provide.
In recognition of the general inadequacy of the defense
budget to meet all the armed services requirements, the
committee recommends an increase of $217.6 million over the
amounts requested for the recruiting and retention by the
active and reserve components. In deciding what shortfalls to
address, the committee gave priority to those recruiting and
retention initiatives that provide money directly to service
members. The details of the recommended increases are provided
in the table accompanying section 421 above.
The committee notes, however, that the recommended increase
is less than one third of the funding shortfall reported by the
armed services. The committee expects DOD and the armed
services to move aggressively to eliminate the remaining
shortfall in fiscal year 2001. Furthermore, the committee
strongly recommends the secretaries concerned include full
funding for recruiting and retention programs in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request and not rely on Congress to provide
the necessary resources to sustain the all volunteer force.
Additionally, the committee is disappointed that progress
in developing recruiting kiosks using computer technology has
been slowed due to inadequate funding. The committee believes
that recruiting kiosks are an important initiative that should
be developed expeditiously. The committee urges the Secretary
of Defense to initiate a fully funded joint program to expand
the testing of computer kiosks within all the military
departments.
Homosexual Conduct Briefings
The committee desires to clarify the objectives of the
briefings and training sessions on the policy, regulations, and
laws governing homosexual conduct that are required by section
654 of title 10, United States Code, or directed by the
Secretary of Defense. The committee believes that all briefings
and training sessions on homosexual conduct should focus on the
standards of behavior as required by law, and should be limited
to the behavior expected of service members regarding the
professional treatment of other members. The briefings and
training sessions should respect and acknowledge the personal
or religious values of service members, and they shall be
informed of their right to retain them.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to review
all homosexual conduct briefings and training being conducted
by the armed services and bring them in compliance with the
committee's directions.
Incentives for Overseas Assignments
The committee is concerned that the military services are
having difficulty filling overseas duty positions with
volunteers. The committee notes that volunteers for overseas
duty in the Navy are considered to have met their sea duty
requirement, and further notes that volunteers in overseas
shore-based positions hinder the Navy's ability to meet its
ship staffing requirements. While overseas duty is often
desirable for younger unaccompanied service members, senior
service members are frequently reluctant to go overseas because
of family concerns. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to study incentives for overseas
assignments and report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by December
31, 2000, on attainable and affordable recommendations to
resolve this problem.
National Guard Military Technician Overtime Pay
The committee notes that section 709(h) of title 32, United
States Code, prohibits Army and Air Force National Guard
military technicians from receiving overtime pay. Instead, that
section requires that technicians be granted compensatory time
for overtime work. The committee recognizes that the law
concerning national guard military technician overtime has
remained essentially unchanged since the enactment of the
National Guard Technicians Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-486). The
committee believesthat a review of this policy is needed,
however, because the role and utilization of the full time support
force has changed fundamentally since 1968. This increased reliance on
the full time force causes many military technicians to routinely work
irregular and overtime hours. While the law directs that these national
guard military technicians be given time off in lieu of overtime, the
reality is that they are receiving neither. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to review the policy and cost considerations by
which national guard military technicians are treated for overtime work
and to report his findings and any recommendations to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services
by March 31, 2001.
Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act
The committee notes that section 643 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85) required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
comprehensive review of the Uniformed Services Former Spouse
Protection Act (USFSPA) and to report his findings to Congress
by September 30, 1999. The committee considers this an
important review with significant implications for many service
members and their families. The committee is disappointed the
review remains incomplete and encourages the Secretary to
submit the report as soon as possible.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--General Personnel Management Authorities
Section 501--Authority for Secretary of Defense to Suspend Certain
Personnel Strength Limitations During War or National Emergency
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
suspend in time of war or national emergency the limits on the
number of personnel serving on active duty in the grades of E-8
and E-9, and the number of personnel serving on active duty in
support of the reserves in grades 0-6, 0-5, 0-4, E-9, and E-8.
This section would also make the procedures for calculating the
number of service members authorized to serve in controlled
grades in time of war or national emergency for the categories
of personnel listed above consistent with the procedures used
for active duty officers.
Section 502--Authority to Issue Posthumous Commissions in the Case of
Members Dying Before Official Recommendation for Appointment or
Promotion is Approved by Secretary Concerned
This section would clarify that the secretary concerned may
confer posthumous commissions in cases where military members
die prior to the approval of an official recommendation for
appointment or promotion.
Section 503--Technical Correction to Retired Grade Rule for Army and
Air Force Officers
This section would repeal conflicting provisions of law
regarding the determination of retirement grade for reserve
officers. This section would also clarify that retirement grade
for reserve officers will be determined in accordance with
section 1370 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 504--Extension to End of Calendar Year of Expiration Date for
Certain Force Drawdown Transition Authorities
This section would extend through December 31, 2001,
certain force drawdown transition authorities. These
authorities include:
(1) Active duty early retirement authority;
(2) Special separation benefit authority;
(3) Voluntary separation incentive authority;
(4) Increased flexibility in the management of
selective early retirement boards;
(5) Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for
retention of grade upon voluntary retirement;
(6) Reduction of length of commissioned service for
voluntary retirement as an officer;
(7) Enhanced travel and transportation allowances and
storage of baggage and household effects for certain
involuntary separated members;
(8) Increased flexibility for granting educational
leave relating to continuing public and community
service;
(9) Enhanced health, commissary and family housing
benefits;
(10) Increased flexibility in the management of
enrollments of dependents in the Defense Dependents'
Education System;
(11) Definition of the force reduction transition
period for reserve forces;
(12) Force reduction period reserve retirement
authority;
(13) Reduction of length of non-regular service
requirements for reserve retirements;
(14) Reserve early retirement authority;
(15) Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for
retention of grade upon voluntary reserve retirement;
(16) Increased flexibility in the management of the
affiliation of active duty personnel with reserve
units;
(17) Increased flexibility in the management of
eligibility for reserve educational assistance.
Section 505--Clarification of Requirements for Composition of Active-
Duty List Selection Boards When Reserve Officers are Under
Consideration
This section would clarify section 612 of title 10, United
States Code, by specifying that reserve officers serving on
active duty may be appointed to serve on promotion boards even
though they are not on the active-duty list.
Section 506--Voluntary Separation Incentive
This section would authorize service members who
simultaneously receive retired or retainer pay and voluntary
separation incentive (VSI) to terminate their eligibility for
VSI. The section would also allow the service member who is
eligible for retired pay and who has received VSI to reimburse
the government for the amount of VSI received without
concurrently increasing the amount of VSI that is owed.
Section 507--Congressional Review Period for Assignment of Women to
Duty on Submarines and for Any Proposed Reconfiguration or Design of
Submarines to Accommodate Female Crew Members
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide to Congress written notification prior to any policy
change affecting the current male-only assignment policy for
submarines take effect, and prior to the expenditure of funds
to reconfigure or design a submarine to accommodate the
assignment of female crewmembers. Such changes could take place
only after 120 days of continuous congressional session have
expired following receipt by Congress of the notice of the
proposed changes.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Personnel Policy
Section 511--Exemption from Active-Duty List for Reserve Officers on
Active Duty for a Period of Three Years or Less
This section would prevent a reserve officer voluntarily
serving on active duty for a period of three years or less from
being placed on the active-duty list and required to compete
for promotion with active duty officers. This section would
also authorize such officers to remain on the Reserve Active
Status List and compete for promotion with other reserve
officers. The committee considers this section to apply to
reserve component officers serving in positions authorized by
section 526(b)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code.
Section 512--Exemption of Reserve Component Medical and Dental Officers
from Counting in Grade Strengths
This section would exempt medical and dental officers from
the calculation of the number of officers in each grade
authorized to serve in an active status in a reserve component.
This section would also make the procedures for calculating the
number of officers serving in controlled grades for the reserve
components consistent with the procedures used for active duty
officers.
Section 513--Continuation of Officers on the Reserve Active Status List
Without Requirement for Application
This section would authorize the secretary of a military
department to offer continuation on the Reserve Active Status
List to reserve officers without requiring the officer to
request continuation.
Section 514--Authority to Retain Reserve Component Chaplains and
Officers in Medical Specialties Until Specified Age
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to extend the service of Medical Service Corps and biomedical
sciences officers to age 67.
Section 515--Authority for Temporary Increase in Number of Reserve
Component Personnel Serving on Active Duty or Full-Time National Guard
Duty in Certain Grades
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
increase the number of reserve members serving on active duty
in support of the reserves in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps in the grades of 0-6, 0-5, 0-4, E-9, and E-8 by
the same percentage the Secretary is authorized to increase the
end strength of that force by section 115 of title 10, United
States Code.
Section 516--Authority for Provision of Legal Services to Reserve
Component Members Following Release from Active Duty
This section would authorize legal services assistance to
reservists who served on active duty for more than 29 days and
their dependents for a period not to exceed twice the length of
time served on active duty.
Section 517--Entitlement to Separation Pay for Reserve Officers
Released from Active Duty Upon Declining Selective Continuation on
Active Duty After Second Failure of Selection for Promotion
This section would clarify that the separation of a reserve
officer on active duty who was non-selected for promotion twice
to the same grade, and who subsequently declines selective
continuation shall be considered an involuntary separation, and
would authorize such an officer to be eligible for separation
pay.
The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of the
Army was unable to prevent a number of reserve captains from
being separated from active duty involuntarily without
separation pay because the officers declined continuation on
active duty after being non-selected for promotion. The
committee notes that regular captains non-selected for
promotion by the same promotion board did receive separation
pay after declining continuation on active duty. This section
would insure that similarly situated reserve officers receive
separation pay in the future, but would not allow separation
pay to be provided to those reserve captains separated during
fiscal year 2000.
The Secretary of the Army indicates that he will rely on
the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to
restore fairness and equity to the reserve captains denied
separation pay during fiscal year 2000. The committee requests
that the Secretary expedite consideration of these cases by the
ABCMR to minimize hardships for these members and their
families.
Section 518--Extension of Involuntary Civil Service Retirement Date for
Certain Reserve Technicians
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments to retain certain non-dual status reserve
technicians until age 60, an age beyond which these technicians
would otherwise be required to separate from federal civil
service as required by section 10218 of title 10, United States
Code.
The committee notes that current law was intended to reduce
the numbers of non-dual status technicians while providing for
a process that minimized the impact on the technicians being
separated. The committee has learned that the process has not
worked as intended, and the committee is concerned that some
technicians would be forced to retire without adequate notice
as a result of that process.
Subtitle C--Education and Training
Section 521--College Tuition Assistance Program for Pursuit of Degrees
by Members of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class Program
This section would authorize the use of the Marine Corps
Platoon Leaders Class Tuition Assistance Program for the
purpose of providing educational assistance to include legal
training to commissioned officers participating in the Platoon
Leaders Class program.
Section 522--Review of Allocation of Junior Reserve Officers Training
Corps Units Among the Services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
review and redistribute the current service Junior Reserve
Officers Training Corps (JROTC) allocations for fiscal years
2001 to 2006 to enable those services that want to more quickly
eliminate their current JROTC waiting lists and are willing to
commit the necessary resources to do so, have the opportunity
to grow. Further, if the reallocation results in the Secretary
of Defense determining that the current statutory cap of 3,500
JROTC units should be increased, then his recommendations for
the increase should be included in the fiscal year 2002 budget
request. The Secretary of Defense has begun expanding the
number of JROTC units from the present 2,700 to the statutory
maximum of 3,500. The committee commends this effort and
encourages the Secretary of Defense to achieve expansion before
2006, the target completion date. To that end, the committee
believes that if a military service is willing to commit the
resources to expand its JROTC program to eliminate its waiting
list of high schools that have requested a JROTC program more
quickly than envisioned by the six-year Department of Defense
(DOD) plan, then the service should not be constrained by the
internal unit allocation limits of the DOD plan.
Section 523--Authority for Naval Postgraduate School to Enroll Certain
Defense Industry Civilians in Specified Programs Relating to Defense
Product Development
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enroll up to ten defense-industry civilians at any one time at
the Naval Postgraduate School in a defense product development
curriculum leading to the award of a master's degree. The
defense-industry civilians would be joined in the curriculum by
Department of Defense civilian and military personnel who
themselves are engaged in defense product development. The
committee believes that the new authority granted by this
section will create a shared learning environment that will
facilitate the growth and development of government-industry
partnerships that are critical to faster and more efficient
defense acquisition.
Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards, and Commendations
Section 531--Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Andrew J.
Smith for Valor during the Civil War
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for
the award of the Medal of Honor to Andrew J. Smith for valor
during the Battle of Honey Hill in South Carolina.
Section 532--Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Ed W. Freeman
for Valor during the Vietnam Conflict
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for
the award of the Medal of Honor to Ed W. Freeman for valor
during the battle of the IaDrang Valley in the Republic of
Vietnam.
Section 533--Consideration of Proposals for Posthumous or Honorary
Promotions or Appointments of Members or Former Members of the Armed
Forces and Other Qualified Persons
This section would authorize Members of Congress to request
the secretary concerned review a proposal for posthumous or
honorary promotion or appointment of a member or former member
of the armed services or other person. The section would
require the secretary concerned to review the case and provide
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on
Armed Services, and the requesting Member of Congress written
notice of one of the following determinations, to include a
statement of the reasons supporting the determination:
(1) The appointment or promotion does not warrant approval
on the merits.
(2) The appointment of promotion warrants approval on the
merits and has been recommended to the President as an
exception to policy.
(3) The appointment or promotion warrants approval on the
merits and authorization by law is required, but not
recommended.
The committee is concerned that requests for posthumous or
honorary promotions and appointments are being considered by
Congress without the benefit of the views of the service
secretaries.
Section 534--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Navy Distinguished
Flying Cross to Certain Persons
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for
the award of Distinguished Flying Cross to individuals
recommended for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross by the
secretaries of the military departments.
Section 535--Addition of Certain Information to Markers on Graves
Containing Remains of Certain Unknowns from the U.S.S. Arizona Who Died
in the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941
This section would require that the Secretary of the Army,
based on a review of existing information related to the
interment of unknown casualties from the U.S.S. Arizona,
provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with information to
be added to the inscriptions on the grave markers of those
unknowns who are interred at the National Memorial Cemetery of
the Pacific, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Section 536--Sense of Congress Regarding Final Crew of U.S.S.
INDIANAPOLIS
This section would express the Sense of Congress that the
commander of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS, Admiral (then Captain)
Charles Butler McVay III was not culpable for the sinking of
the ship. The section would also express the Sense of Congress
that the President should award the Presidential Unit Citation
to the final crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS for courage and
fortitude after the torpedo attack.
Section 537--Posthumous Advancement of Rear Admiral (Retired) Husband
E. Kimmel and Major General (Retired) Walter C. Short on Retired Lists
This section would request the President to advance Rear
Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to admiral and Major General Walter
Short to lieutenant general on the retired list with no
increase in compensation or benefits. The provision also
expresses the Sense of Congress that both officers were
professional and competent, and the losses incurred during the
attack on Pearl Harbor were not the result of dereliction in
the performance of duties in the case of either officer.
Section 538--Commendation of Citizens of Remy, France, for World War II
Actions
This section would commend the bravery and honor of the
citizens of Remy, France for their action to bury Lieutenant
Houston Braly, 364th Fighter Group, during World War II. The
section would also recognize the efforts of the surviving
members of the United States 364th Fighter Group to raise funds
to restore the stained glass windows of Remy's 13th century
church that were destroyed.
Subtitle E--Military Justice Matters
Section 541--Recognition by States of Military Testamentary Instruments
This section would amend chapter 53 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the fifty states of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and each territory
and possession of the United States, to include Guam, American
Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the
Virgin Islands to recognize a will prepared for a person
eligible to receive legal assistance under section 1044 of
title 10, United Sates Code. This section would also ensure
that wills prepared by members of the armed forces, their
spouses, and other persons eligible for legal assistance are
admitted for state probate proceedings. This section would also
simplify will preparation for eligible personnel and afford
them greater certainty and security in accomplishing their
testamentary intent.
Section 542--Probable Cause Required for Entry of Names of Subjects
into Official Criminal Investigative Reports
This section would require the Department of Defense to
apply the ``probable cause'' standard before titling a crime
suspect. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to amend the standards and procedures for the removal
of titling information from the Defense Clearance and
Investigations Index to permit the removal of a titled person's
name by the head of the submitting Defense Criminal
Investigative Organization when there is reason to believe that
the titling is in error, a person is falsely accused, no crime
occurred, or the entry does not serve the interests of justice.
The committee is concerned that the standard of the
Department of Defense for titling a crime suspect as
established by Department of Defense Instruction 5505.7
requires ``credible information.'' This standard appears to be
significantly different from the ``probable cause'' standard
common in state and federal criminal procedure.
Section 543--Collection and Use of DNA Identification Information from
Violent and Sexual Offenders in the Armed Forces
This section would require the secretaries of the military
departments to collect a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample
from each member of the armed forces who is, or has been,
convicted of a violent or sexual offense. This section would
also require the Secretary of Defense to analyze each sample
and furnish the results of each DNA analysis to the director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for use in the
Combined DNA Index System of the FBI.
Section 544--Limitation on Secretarial Authority to Grant Clemency for
Military Prisoners Serving Sentence of Confinement for Life Without
Eligibility for Parole
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to make
two changes to the procedures for considering clemency for
prisoners serving sentences of life without parole. First, the
authority for the granting of clemency to prisoners serving
sentences of life without parole would be vested solely in the
secretary of the military department concerned and would not be
delegable to any other person. The section would also establish
as a minimum that a prisoner will have served twenty years of a
sentence of life without parole before being eligible for
consideration for clemency. The committee isaware that a
majority of the members of the Department of Defense Corrections
Council has recommended these or similar actions. The committee
supports these recommendations to ensure that prisoners serving
sentences of life without parole will remain incarcerated for a
significantly longer period of time than would otherwise be expected
for prisoners serving lesser sentences.
Section 545--Authority for Civilian Special Agents of Military
Department Criminal Investigative Organizations to Execute Warrants and
Make Arrests
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments to grant the authority to execute and
serve warrants and make arrests to the civilian special agents
of their respective military criminal investigative
organization subject to certain guidelines.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 551--Funeral Honors Duty Compensation
This section would authorize a reserve component member
assigned to a funeral honors detail for the funeral of a
veteran to be compensated at the same rate as the member would
be compensated for participating in inactive-duty training.
Section 552--Test of Ability of Reserve Component Intelligence Units
and Personnel to Meet Current and Emerging Defense Intelligence Needs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a three-year test to determine the most effective
peacetime structure and operational employment of reserve
component intelligence assets for meeting future Department of
Defense peacetime operational intelligence requirements, and to
establish a means of coordinating the transition of the
peacetime operational support network into wartime
requirements.
Section 553--National Guard Challenge Program
This section would authorize the head of a federal agency
or department to provide funds to the Secretary of Defense to
support the National Guard Challenge Program, and would allow
the Secretary to expend those funds notwithstanding the $62.5
million limit in defense funding established by section 509(b)
of title 32, United States Code, for the Challenge program. The
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
establish regulations for the Challenge program.
Section 554--Study of Use of Civilian Contractor Pilots for Operational
Support Missions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
study the feasibility and cost of using civilian contractor
personnel as pilots and other aircrew members to fly government
aircraft performing non-combat personnel transportation
missions worldwide. Military pilots and aircrew now perform
these missions. The committee recommends this study to
determine whether such contracting out would help to resolve
pilot shortages being experienced by several of the armed
services, and help to improve pilot retention.
Section 555--Pilot Program to Enhance Military Recruiting by Improving
Military Awareness of School Counselors and Educators
The committee has noted that at some locations the strained
relationship between military recruiters and student counselors
and educators limits the access of recruiters to students. The
committee believes that historical barriers between the two
groups can be overcome and access to students enhanced by
improving the understanding of student counselors and educators
about military recruiting and career opportunities.
Accordingly, this section would direct the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a pilot program to improve communication
with student counselors and educators by providing funding,
assistance, and information to an existing interactive Internet
site designed to provide information and services to employees
of local education agencies and institutions of higher
education. The pilot program would be conducted during a three-
year period beginning not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this act.
Section 556--Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred by Members in
Connection with Cancellation of Leave on Short Notice
This section would authorize the service secretaries to
reimburse members for travel expenses when leave is cancelled
within 48 hours of commencing due to mission requirements of a
contingency operation.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee remains convinced that compensation provided
to service members and their families is the key to reversing
unfavorable retention trends. Surveys of military members
conducted during the past year have confirmed that compensation
remains the most important factor in the decision of service
members to leave the military.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(Public Law 106-65) enhanced and reformed the following
compensation programs:
(1) Pay raises guaranteed to exceed private sector
pay raises were authorized.
(2) Pay table reform was implemented to recognize
individual effort.
(3) Military retirement benefits were restored to
pre-1986 levels.
(4) Basic allowance for housing (BAH) was increased
to promise improved reimbursement levels.
(5) Special pays and retention bonuses were initiated
and increased to improve compensation to military
members.
(6) A military Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) was
authorized to provide military members a retirement
savings vehicle.
The committee is committed to fulfill the promise for
continued improvement to compensation programs begun in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106-65).
The committee is pleased that the budget request for fiscal
year 2001 included a pay raise of 3.7 percent, one-half of one
percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) level, and a
program to increase BAH and reduce out-of-pocket housing costs
for members to zero by fiscal year 2005. Given the
Administration's reluctance to fund adequate pay raises and a
decision to abandon after one year a prior six-year plan to
reduce out-of-pocket housing costs, the committee applauds the
Administration's improvement of military compensation programs.
The committee is disappointed that the Administration was
unable to identify the pay-go offsets needed to implement the
military Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). The committee is pleased
that the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2001,
does include the necessary offsets. Accordingly, the committee
would authorize the military TSP to be implemented during
fiscal year 2001.
The committee is concerned that even a small percentage of
military families qualify for the food stamp program.
Accordingly, the committee would authorize a family assistance
supplemental subsistence allowance specifically targeted to
increase compensation for low-income members who qualify for
food stamps. The allowance would pay members the monthly amount
of supplemental allowance required to remove them from the food
stamp program, not to exceed a maximum of $500 per month.
Additionally, the committee would authorize a series of broad-
based initiatives to enhance the fiscal welfare of young
families by increasing the minimum standards for adequate
housing, increasing reimbursement for moving costs, and
reducing out-of-pocket housing costs.
The committee also recognizes that military personnel are
likely to respond positively to indications that Congress is
prepared to make substantial investments in their long-term
welfare. Accordingly, the committee would increase the maximum
levels on several special pays and would also establish a new
retention bonus program that affords the Secretary of Defense a
more flexible and responsive tool to retain service members
with critical skills.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Briefings on Benefits of Military Service
The committee is concerned that the armed services have not
included among the many new retention initiatives a robust
program for briefing service members on the benefits of
military service. The committee believes that retention would
be improved by a program designed to provide service members
periodic briefings on benefits.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to review the current programs employed by the armed services
to provide service members information on the full array of
benefits available to them. The review shall include an
assessment of program effectiveness in communicating
information on the following benefit programs, at a minimum, as
well as other programs operated by the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs, at the discretion of
the Secretary.
(1) Military compensation and retired pay;
(2) Health care benefits, including the TRICARE
program;
(3) Survivor benefits;
(4) Montgomery G.I. Bill and other education and
training opportunities;
(5) Morale, welfare, and recreational benefits,
including child care benefits;
(6) Commissary and exchange benefits;
(7) Retirement homes operated for the benefit of
former military members; and
(8) Veteran benefits offered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs, including health care; disability
benefits, education and training, home loan guarantees,
life insurance, burial benefits, and survivor benefits.
The Secretary shall also determine if the current programs
providing information on benefits to service members require
modification and expansion.
The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings
and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
Extension of Time Limitation on Use of Reserve Education Benefits
The committee is concerned that the time limitation on the
use of education benefits by members of the selected reserve
detracts from the potential of the program to promote career-
long retention. Section 16331 of title 10, United States Code,
provides that members of the selected reserve who remain in an
active status lose eligibility 10 years from the date the
service member becomes eligible for benefits.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
time limitations on the use of education benefits by the
selected reserve and determine if an extension of thetime
limitations is useful and cost effective. The committee directs the
Secretary to report his findings and any recommendations to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services
by March 31, 2001.
Improved Basic Allowance for Housing
The committee believes that the additional funding for the
basic allowance for housing (BAH) included in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) and the proposal to reduce out-of-pocket housing costs in
the fiscal year 2001 budget request will improve the quality of
life for many military members and their families. The BAH
rates in high cost areas have already been significantly
increased as of January 1, 2000, pursuant to Public Law 106-65.
The committee is concerned that some landlords will view
the increase in the BAH as an incentive to increase housing
costs not only for military members, but also for civilians in
the local community. The committee supports additional funding
for the BAH to ensure that military families receive sufficient
compensation for adequate housing as dictated by the local
housing market. The committee intends to monitor any growth in
housing costs within areas that appear to be fueled by BAH
increases and not the economic forces of the local housing
market. The committee is prepared to reexamine BAH rates in
areas where there is evidence that BAH increases have unduly
influenced local housing markets.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
growth of housing costs in areas where the local costs of
housing are believed to be directly influenced by increases in
BAH rates. The Secretary shall report his findings and
recommendations for correcting the problem to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 31 of each year of the period beginning in
2001 and ending in 2006.
Military Pay Day Every 14 Days
The committee recognizes that the current practice of
paying military personnel twice a month causes some pay periods
to be longer, thus increasing the financial stress for military
families. The committee notes that paying military personnel
every 14 days would provide military members with more
consistent pay periods.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to study whether the change to a 14-day pay period for military
personnel is both necessary and desirable. The committee
directs the Secretary to report his findings and any
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
Pay Table Reform for Mid-Grade Enlisted Members
The committee is increasingly interested in pay increases
targeted for noncommissioned officers in pay grades E-5 through
E-7. The committee recognizes that the pay table reform
provision included in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) did little to restore
the historic pay advantages enjoyed by mid-grade and senior
enlisted members when compared to junior enlisted members.
The committee is concerned that more needs to be done to
improve mid-grade enlisted pay levels. Accordingly, the
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to study the
issue and present with the fiscal year 2002 budget request
either a legislative proposal to remedy the concerns of the
enlisted force, or an explanation as to why the concerns of the
enlisted force are not valid.
Reimbursement for Reservists' Travel Expenses
The committee is concerned that some reservists incur
significant expenses traveling to inactive-duty training
locations. This problem becomes particularly acute when reserve
members are forced to use commercial air when surface
transportation is not available or large distances are
involved. For example, reservists must use commercial air
between Pacific islands and some locations in Alaska.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to review the current travel practices used by reservists to
meet training obligations and determine the financial impact on
members. The Secretary will assess the potential advantages for
reservists and the reserve components of providing
reimbursement for travel expenses, to include the potential for
increasing retention, improving recruiting, and attracting
higher quality members to leadership roles.
The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings
and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
Reimbursement of Permanent Change of Station Expenses
The committee is aware of the results of a study conducted
by the Department of Defense that demonstrates that military
members bear approximately 40 percent of the cost of moving to
a new duty station. The committee is deeply concerned that
personnel in the grades E-4 and below bear approximately 70
percent of the financial burden to change permanent duty
stations (PCS).
The committee intends to focus on improving PCS
reimbursements. Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages
the Secretary of Defense to develop a legislative proposal
designed to enhance PCS reimbursement levels and to submit such
a proposal with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Retired Pay Following Reduction in Grade
The committee notes that during calendar year 2000
longevity retired pay for members of the uniformed services who
entered service after September 8, 1980, will be calculated
based on the average of the highest 36 months of base pay. The
committee is concerned that members covered by the high-36 rule
will enjoy a windfall when reduced in grade due to misconduct
prior to retirement. Under high-36 procedures, the retired pay
of such personnel is largely based on the grade held by the
member prior to the reduction in grade.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to study the need for legislation to provide an alternative
method for calculating retired pay when a member has been
reduced in grade due to misconduct. The Secretary shall report
his finding and recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 31, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2001
This section would authorize a 3.7 percent military pay
raise effective January 1, 2001. This pay raise would be one-
half of one percent more than the pay raise that would result
if the Employment Cost Index (ECI) standard were used.
The committee strongly supports this pay raise and believes
it is critical that military members receive military pay
increases over the next five years that improve their level of
pay compared to the private sector, as authorized in section
602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-65).
Section 602--Revised Method for Calculation of Basic Allowance for
Subsistence
The committee believes that the program to transition the
basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) for enlisted members to a
lower rate established in section 602 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) is
no longer serving the best interests of service members.
Accordingly, this section would repeal the transition
program effective October 1, 2001, and establish a process for
increasing the BAS rate in effect for the prior year by the
increase in food costs as determined by the Department of
Agriculture.
The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to pay
eligible service members a partial BAS effective January 1,
2002 equal to rate of BAS reduced by the rate of Basic Daily
Food Allowance as determined by the Secretary.
Section 603--Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance for Low-Income
Members of the Armed Forces
The committee is concerned that a number of service members
are eligible to receive food stamps. Although the number of
members receiving food stamps has been reduced from the 12,000
estimated in 1996, there are still 6,300 service members
believed to be relying on food stamps to meet the nutritional
needs of family members.
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
establish a program to pay members who qualify for food stamps
a monthly amount to supplement the basic allowance for
subsistence (BAS). The program would pay members who qualify
for food stamps the amount of supplemental allowance necessary
to make them ineligible for food stamps, up to a maximum of
$500 dollars per month. The member's eligibility for food
stamps would be determined by DOD officials using the same
gross income standards used by state officials to determine
food stamp eligibility for the general public, except that the
income for all military members would be calculated to include
the payment of basic allowance for housing (BAH) even when the
member resides in government quarters.
Section 604--Calculation of Basic Allowance for Housing for Inside the
United States
This section would repeal the requirement that service
members pay 15 percent of housing costs out-of-pocket. The
section would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to
increase basic allowance for housing rates and to reduce out-
of-pocket housing expenses for military members to zero by
fiscal year 2005.
Section 605--Equitable Treatment of Junior Enlisted Members in
Computation of Basic Allowance for Housing
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a single housing rate for members in grades E-1
through E-4 with dependents and to increase the basic allowance
for housing rate paid to such members above the rate previously
paid to members in grade E-4.
Section 606--Basic Allowance for Housing Authorized for Additional
Members Without Dependents Who Are on Sea Duty
This section would include personnel in the grade of E-4
among those authorized to receive basic allowance for housing
(BAH) while assigned to sea duty.
The committee notes that some personnel authorized to
receive BAH while assigned to sea duty do not maintain
residences on shore when their ships are deployed. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to study this
issue. The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report
on his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 31, 2001.
Section 607--Personal Money Allowance for Senior Enlisted Members of
the Armed Forces
This section would authorize a $2,000 personal money
allowance to the senior enlisted members in each of the armed
services.
Section 608--Allowance for Officers for Purchase of Required Uniforms
and Equipment
This section would increase the one-time initial uniform
allowance paid to officers from $200 to $400, and the one-time
additional uniform allowance paid to officers from $100 to
$200.
Section 609--Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for Members of
Precommissioning Programs
This section would increase the minimum stipend to $250 per
month, and establish a maximum stipend of $600 per month, and
it also would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to
establish a tiered-stipend system. Under such a system, the
committee intends that the value of the monthly stipend should
grow as a student's involvement in ROTC grows. The changes
contained in this section would be effective on October 1,
2001. The committee is aware that the senior Reserve Officers
Training Corps (ROTC) programs of the Army and the Air Force
continue to have difficulty meeting officer commissioning
objectives. The committee notes that the Army may miss its
objectives by 20 percent, and the Air Force by five percent for
fiscal year 2000. The committee further notes that the
Department of Defense has reported a 20 percent reduction in
the number of ROTC scholarship applications, and that the
current monthly fixed subsistence stipend of $200 paid to all
contracted cadets is ineffective as a recruiting and retention
measure. The committee is concerned by these trends in the ROTC
program and believes that a fundamental change is required.
Section 610--Additional Amount Available for Fiscal Year 2001 Increase
in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States
The committee remains concerned that military families are
not receiving sufficient reimbursement for housing. The
committee is pleased that the budget request included an
initiative to decrease out-of-pocket housing cost for service
members, but the committee is disappointed that the initiative
would only reduce out-of-pocket housing costs to 15 percent.
Accordingly, this section would increase the funding
available for basic allowance for housing by $30.0 million.
This initiative would reduce out-of-pocket housing costs by an
additional one-half of one percent.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities
for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve
in critically short wartime specialties, the selected reserve
reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment bonus,
special pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve
assigned to certain high priority units, the selected reserve
affiliation bonus, the ready reserve enlistment and
reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus
until December 31, 2001. This section would also extend the
authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health
care professionals who serve in the selected reserve until
January 1, 2002.
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities
for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses and Nurse Anesthetists
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists until December 31, 2001.
Section 613--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other
Bonuses and Special Pays
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, reenlistment bonus for active members,
enlistment bonus for persons with critical skills, Army
enlistment bonus, special pay for nuclear qualified officers
extending the period of active service, nuclear career
accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus
to December 31, 2001.
Section 614--Consistency of Authorities for Special Pay for Reserve
Medical and Dental Officers
This section would clarify that reserve medical and dental
officers are paid special pay in a consistent manner.
Section 615--Special Pay for Coast Guard Physician Assistants
This section would extend the authority to pay special pay
currently provided to physician assistants in the military
departments to physician assistants in the Coast Guard.
Section 616--Special Duty Assignment Pay for Enlisted Members
This section would increase the maximum amount that may be
paid in special duty assignment pay from $275 to $600 per
month.
The committee notes that recruiters would be eligible for
this increase. Given the stress associated with recruiting duty
and the importance of attracting quality service members to
recruiting duty, the committee recommends that the secretaries
of the military departments begin to pay increased rates of
special duty assignment pay to production recruiters at the
earliest date possible.
Section 617--Revision of Career Sea Pay
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to
restructure career sea pay and increase the rates of career sea
pay to a maximum of $750 per month and the rates for premium
sea pay to $350 per month after 36 months of sea duty.
The committee continues to be concerned that the eroding
value of sea pay has contributed to the shortage of personnel
in some sea-going positions. The committee looks forward to the
implementation of enhanced sea pay rates by the uniformed
services at the earliest opportunity.
Section 618--Revision of Enlistment Bonus Authority
This section would consolidate existing enlistment bonus
authorities and establish a maximum amount of $20,000 that may
be paid to any enlistee.
Section 619--Authorization of Retention Bonus for Members of the Armed
Forces Qualified in a Critical Military Skill
The section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
implement a critical skill retention bonus program providing
payments up to $200,000 over the course of the career of a
military member effective 90 days after providing notice of the
details of the program to Congress.
The committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense
does not have a retention tool sufficiently flexible to allow
skill-specific retention problems to be addressed in a timely
manner.
Section 620--Elimination of Required Congressional Notification before
Implementation of Certain Special Pay Authority
This section would eliminate the requirement for the
secretary concerned to notify Congress of the intent to pay
special pay to optometrists and nurse anesthetists.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Section 631--Advance Payments for Temporary Lodging of Members and
Dependents
This section would authorize advance payment of temporary
lodging and living expenses incident to permanent changes in
station.
Section 632--Additional Transportation Allowance Regarding Baggage and
Household Effects
This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to
reimburse a member for mandatory pet quarantine fees for
household pets up to a maximum of $275 when the member incurs
the fees incident to a permanent change of station.
Section 633--Equitable Dislocation Allowances for Junior Enlisted
Members
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
increase the amount of dislocation allowance paid to service
members with dependents in pay grades E-1 through E-4 to the
amount paid to service members in pay grade E-5.
Section 634--Authority to Reimburse Military Recruiters, Senior ROTC
Cadre, and Military Entrance Processing Personnel for Certain Parking
Expenses
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse service members and civilian employees for expenses
incurred in parking their privately owned vehicles at their
duty locations if they are assigned to duty as a recruiter,
with a military entrance processing facility, or with a Senior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps detachment.
Section 635--Expansion of Funded Student Travel for Dependents
This section would authorize funded student travel payments
to be made for students pursuing graduate and vocational
education programs in addition to secondary and undergraduate
education programs.
Subtitle D--Retirement and Survivor Benefit Matters
Section 641--Increase in Maximum Number of Reserve Retirement Points
That May be Credited in Any Year
This section would increase from 75 to 90 the maximum
number of days in any one year that a reservist may accrue as
credit towards retirement benefits by permitting a reservist to
earn more points each year for attending drills, performing
annual training and completing correspondence courses.
Section 642--Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan Spousal Consent
Requirement
This section would require retirement-eligible reservists
to obtain the concurrence of their spouses before making a
decision to decline or defer participation in the Reserve
Component Survivor Benefit Plan, to select a level of
participation that is less than the maximum available, or to
select the coverage of a child but not the spouse. This section
would conform the procedures for the Reserve Component Survivor
Benefit Plan to the procedures for the active component
Survivor Benefit Plan.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 651--Participation in Thrift Savings Plan
This section would authorize active duty and reserve
members of the uniformed services to deposit up to five percent
of their basic pay, before tax, each month in the Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP) now available for federal civil service
employees. The section would not require the employing
department to match the member's contributions. This section
would also authorize members to deposit special pays, incentive
pays, and bonuses into a TSP account up to the extent allowable
under the Internal Revenue Code. The section would also
authorize the secretary concerned to make contributions to the
TSP account belonging to members serving in a critical
specialty as a retention incentive.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee was encouraged by the early, strong
commitment late last year by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to make major reforms in the Department of Defense
health program a part of the budget request for fiscal year
2001.
Notwithstanding that commitment, the budget request
unfortunately provided only a shadow of the program support and
improvements recommended by the Joint Chiefs. The request was
notably bereft of any initiatives to improve military health
care benefits available to Medicare-eligible military retirees.
In the face of an incomplete reform effort by the
Department of Defense, and in order to better understand the
full range of reforms required, the committee undertook a
deliberate oversight and fact finding effort that included
field hearings. These hearings, as well as informal staff
investigations and meetings, provided all stake holders--
beneficiaries, advocacy groups, health care providers and
contractors, as well as the Department of Defense--the ability
to present options and information upon which the committee
could base reform decisions. The oversight developed several
significant findings, to include:
(1) The provision of a prescription drug benefit to
Medicare-eligible military retirees and their dependents was
given the highest priority by all stakeholders.
(2) Neither the Department of Defense, nor Congress, had
sufficient information to move the currently running health
care demonstration programs for the military Medicare-eligible
beneficiaries from the demonstration to the permanent program
stage.
(3) The cost to the Defense Health Program (DHP) to process
claims was found to be three to four times that of Medicare's
cost per claim. As a result, the committee determined that
hundreds of millions of dollars annually could be saved through
investment in reform of the DHP claims system.
(4) Access to care was severely hampered by the lack of
effective use of information technology and funding limits that
reduced use of military treatment facilities. The difficulty in
getting access to care generated enormous frustration among
beneficiaries with the TRICARE system.
(5) Despite a continuing promise that the medical benefits
would be portable from one region of the country to the next,
military personnel and their families repeatedly found that not
to be the case.
To address these and other issues, the committee recommends
a range of initiatives to improve and reform the DHP for all
beneficiaries including active, retired and the Medicare-
eligible. These reforms are explained in more detail below in
their respective sections, but can be summarized as follows by
saying that the committee recommends:
(1) Implementation of a TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program to
provide the same level of benefits for Medicare-eligible
military retirees as is now available to other TRICARE
beneficiaries through the mail order pharmacy program and
retail pharmacies.
(2) Extension until 2003 of the current Medicare related
demonstration programs to ensure each program receives a fair
and comprehensive test, with an independent oversight effort
required to make recommendations to Congress on what a
permanent program of health care for the Medicare-eligibles
should provide.
(3) Claims processing reform, with additional investment
funding recommended to the DHP to kick-start the reform effort.
(4) Required use of Internet based systems to help improve
claims processing, access to health care and portability of
benefits.
(5) Additional funding to increase use of the military
treatment facilities through the hiring of additional support
staff, refurbishment of facilities, and procurement of
technology and equipment.
While the committee believes that the reforms recommended
here will move DHP reform forward significantly, other
challenges will remain to ensure that the DHP is adequately
funded and managed. To that end, the committee recommendations
also include requirements for the Secretary of Defense to
determine if accrual funding of the DHP is necessary, and to
assess whether mandatory enrollment of beneficiaries should be
required as a possible future step.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Funding for the Defense Health Program
The committee is deeply concerned about the persistent
inattention demonstrated by the Department of Defense to
adequately fund the Defense Health Program. The committee
received testimony that the underfunding will reach $6.0
billion over the future years defense plan. Two foreseeable and
unfortunate responses by military health care managers to this
chronic underfunding have resulted: reduced funding for
maintenance and repair of facilities, and the delay or
elimination of infrastructure and technology investments in
order to avoid reductions in the provision of health care
services. These two critical budget areas are key components of
an effective Defense Health Program. Continuing to underfund
these areas will result in less efficient facilities and,
ultimately, in a reduction in the amount and quality of
services available.
The committee is pleased by the active participation of the
senior uniformed leadership of the Department of Defense in the
important decisions affecting the management of the military
health care system. The committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to foster this level of participation and to ensure the
health system is funded to a level that not only provides for
continuous patient care, but also invests in the health system
infrastructure to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the
system.
Preventive Health Care Services
The committee notes the recent report of the Secretary of
Defense, prepared pursuant to the committee report on H.R. 1401
(H. Rept. 106-162) describing the scope of preventive health
care benefits provided to all eligible TRICARE beneficiaries.
The report favorably compared the TRICARE preventive benefits
to those recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Academy of Family Physicians and the Agency for Health
Research and Quality. At the committee's direction, the
Secretaryalso evaluated implementation of the ``Put Prevention
into Practice'' (PPIP) initiative prepared by each service and
concluded that PPIP needs to be more effectively and uniformly
implemented. The committee concurs with that assessment and directs the
Secretary to submit a report by March 1, 2001, to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the
steps taken to improve the implementation of the PPIP initiative.
Report on Computer-Based Patient Record and Medical Records Tracking
System
The committee notes the on-going cooperation between the
Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), and the Indian Health Service to develop a Government
Computer-Based Patient Record (GCPR) system. The GCPR system
would serve as the core of a medical digital network by linking
the agencies' currently incompatible health information systems
to provide a life-long medical record for all service members.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an
annual report, beginning March 1, 2001, to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on
the progress to date and the remaining timelines and tasks
associated with integrating these medical information systems.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to evaluate the program with a focus on the
agencies' plans for meeting critical GCPR milestones, including
budget and cost estimates, and issues related to data quality,
privacy, and security. The Comptroller General shall report on
his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2001.
While GCPR will provide for the timely transfer of patient
records in the future, the committee has recently learned that
the Military Personnel Records section of the National
Personnel Records Center (NPRC) has been unable to provide
timely retrieval of complete medical records needed for
adjudication of claims filed with the VA. Many medical records
needed by veterans cannot be retrieved because the records are
filed according to the treating hospital or other facilities
and copies or reference to hospitalization are normally not
included in the service member's records. The committee
understands that DOD has been working since 1995 on a Medical
Records Tracking System (MRTS) to facilitate the supply of this
information to the Medical Records Registry System being
developed by the VA and the NPRC. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31,
2001, on the progress of the MRTS and any interim measures to
assure that all hospital and medical records of service members
can be easily identified.
Report on Mandatory Enrollment Program for TRICARE Beneficaries
The committee is aware that military beneficiaries are
required to enroll in the Department of Defense TRICARE Prime
option if they wish to participate in the managed care program.
Enrollment provides the Department of Defense a valuable
management tool on which manpower, budget, contracting, and
other management decisions are based. The committee is
concerned that the same degree of analytic rigor cannot be
brought to bear on decisions related to beneficiaries using the
point of service options under TRICARE because there is no
mandatory enrollment requirement. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of the benefits to be
gained by requiring TRICARE beneficiaries to enroll in any of
the Department's TRICARE programs. The study should include,
but not be limited to, an analysis of the benefits of requiring
eligible beneficiaries to enroll in TRICARE Prime or risk being
prohibited from using the Department of Defense military
treatment facilities. The report should include an analysis of
the value of requiring all non-active duty beneficiaries to pay
a small enrollment fee to enroll in any TRICARE program. The
report shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than March 31, 2001.
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
Section 701--Two-Year Extension of Authority for Use of Contract
Physicians at Military Entrance Processing Stations and Elsewhere
Outside Medical Treatment Facilities
This section would extend for two years, from December 31,
2000, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to contract
with physicians to provide health care and new-recruit
examination services at military entrance processing stations
and other locations. The extension would permit the Secretary
of Defense to complete tests of alternative methods for
streamlining the new-recruit medical screening and make
recommendations for changes to Congress.
Section 702--Medical and Dental Care for Medal of Honor Recipients
This section would authorize Medal of Honor recipients who
are not otherwise entitled to military medical and dental care
and the dependents of those recipients to be given medical and
dental care in the same manner that such care is provided to
former members who are entitled to military retired pay and the
dependents of those former members.
Section 703--Provision of Domiciliary and Custodial Care for CHAMPUS
Beneficiaries and Certain Former CHAMPUS Beneficiaries
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse certain former Civilian Health and Medical Program of
the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) beneficiaries for costs
incurred for custodial or domiciliary care services during a
period of temporary ineligibility for such services under
CHAMPUS. The section would also authorize a maximum expenditure
for the continuing custodial care program at $100.0 million.
Section 704--Demonstration Project for Expanded Access to Mental Health
Counselors
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a demonstration project to determine the effect of
increasing access to certified professional mental health
counselors by removing the requirement for physician referral
prior to engaging a counselor under the TRICARE program. The
committee is aware that certified professional mental health
counselors are only authorized to be reimbursed by TRICARE for
treating military beneficiaries if a physician refers those
beneficiaries to the counselors. The committee views this
referral requirement as possibly unnecessary and would test the
effect of lifting the requirement in a demonstration project to
be conducted in one TRICARE region over a two year period.
Section 705--Teleradiology Demonstration Project
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
implement a teleradiology demonstration project for the purpose
of increasing efficiency of operations and coordination between
outlying clinics and a major military medical facility (MTF).
The teleradiology initiative would be demonstrated at a multi-
specialty tertiary care MTF with a university medical school
affiliation and would link at least 5 geographically-dispersed
Army, Navy and Air Force clinics as well as remote Department
of Veterans Affairs and Coast Guard health care clinics. Once
implemented, the initiative would be unique in having all but
one of the medical facilities in a single TRICARE region using
a common Composite Health Care System (CHCS) data platform. The
committee expects this teleradiology initiative to increase the
efficiency of patient and provider contacts, particularly in
the need for follow-up diagnostic and therapeutic appointments.
The project will demonstrate the usefulness of teleradiology by
eliminating many follow-up appointments and accelerating the
processing, reading and interpretation of radiographic exam
imagery prior to providing clinical reports and consultation to
the primary care providers in the outlying clinics. To fund
this demonstration project in fiscal year 2001, the committee
authorizes an increase of $1.5 million in the amount requested
for the Defense Health Program.
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
Section 711--Additional Beneficiaries Under TRICARE Prime Remote
Program in the Continental United States
This section would repeal the requirement for co-payments
by family members of active duty military members under TRICARE
Prime Remote and would require the same access and claims
processing standards as would be available under TRICARE Prime.
This section would also extend this program to all uniformed
service personnel and their immediate family members as
described in section 101 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee is concerned that family members accompanying
an active duty member who is stationed in a location that is
remote from military treatment facilities must pay TRICARE co-
payments not normally required of active duty families that
have access to military treatment facilities.
Section 712--Elimination of Copayments for Immediate Family
This section would repeal the requirement for co-payments
by family members of active duty military members enrolled in
TRICARE Prime.
The committee is aware that some active duty families
enrolled in TRICARE Prime do not pay co-payments when they
receive care in military treatment facilities, while others are
required to pay co-payments for care received as a result of a
referral from a military treatment facility to a civilian
network provider when the required care is not available at the
military treatment facility. This section would eliminate that
inequity.
Section 713--Modernization of TRICARE Business Practices and Increase
of Use of Military Treatment Facilities
This section would require managers for the Department of
Defense TRICARE program to implement improvements in business
practices by the end of fiscal year 2001, and would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a plan for improving TRICARE
business practices by March 15, 2001, to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services and
require implementation of the plan by October 1, 2001. This
section would also establish improvement benchmarks for the
TRICARE program in the area of portability of the benefit. This
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to simplify
and Internet-enable critical administrative processes within
the military health system and TRICARE and authorize the
Department of Defense to work with a managed care support
contractor to build an open architecture model administration
system in one TRICARE managed care region.
The committee also recommends an increase of $134.5 million
in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program in
fiscal year 2001 to be used solely for the purpose of
maximizing the use of military treatment facilities. The
committee recommends $85.5 million to provide additional
support staff to primary care providers in the military direct
care system, $20.0 million to support procurement of a local
appointing and scheduling system, and $29.0 million to support
local customer service and support initiatives. While the
committee expects these funds to be used to improve access at
the military treatment facilities, the committee also directs
that the planning and installation of the local appointing and
scheduling and customer service operations be coordinated with
the regional managed care support contractors in order to
integrate and synchronize the local systems with regional
applications the managed care support contractors might be
operating to the maximum extent possible.
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense is not taking full advantage of business practices and
technologies that could result in increased provider
satisfaction or budgetary savings, which could be redirected to
providing increased benefits. The committee believes
opportunities exist for immediate improvements in the areas of
claims processing, appointment access, and benefit portability.
The committee also continues to be concerned that the
scheduling of appointments for beneficiaries is difficult. Many
of the administrative procedures currently employed by TRICARE
program managers and claims administrators are relics of the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS) program. The model system would fully exploit all
available technologies to enhance beneficiary and provider
satisfaction and improve TRICARE efficiency.
Section 714--Claims Processing Improvements
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
implement several changes to the TRICARE claims processing
system. These actions include: replacing the Health Care
Service Record (HCSR) with the TRICARE Encounter Data system,
separating the HCSR and claims payment components of the claims
adjudication and payment system, requiring high volume TRICARE
providers to submit claims by electronic means, and increasing
the use of automated voice response unit systems for
determining claims status. The committee has also coordinated
with the research and development subcommittee to recommend an
increase of $3.6 million in the amount requested for the
Defense Health Program in fiscal year 2001 to be used only for
the purpose of implementing the TRICARE Encounter Data system
as a replacement for the HCSR during fiscal year 2001. During
field hearings and in discussions with TRICARE providers, the
committee learned that providers were dissatisfied with TRICARE
payment levels seemingly unnecessary, administrative
requirements and continuing slow claims payment practices. The
committee notes the concern of health care providers that the
timeliness of claims processing continues to be a problem,
hampering the program's ability to attract and retain qualified
health care providers. Several witnesses also testified that
processing TRICARE claims could cost three to four times the
cost of similar Medicare claims. The committee is concerned
that the Department of Defense continues to spend money on
administration that could be used to provide valuable benefits
to military beneficiaries.
Section 715--Prohibition Against Requirement for Prior Authorization
for Certain Referrals; Report on Nonavailability-of-Health-Care
Statements
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
requiring any TRICARE managed care support contractors to
establish prior approval requirements among network providers.
The committee is concerned that some TRICARE patients are
being needlessly required to seek approval prior to being
referred to another specialist or institution within the
TRICARE network of providers and institutions.
Section 716--Authority to Establish Special Locality-Based
Reimbursement Rates; Reports
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
establish higher rates for reimbursement for services in some
localities under certain conditions.
The committee is aware that there are a few areas in the
United States where recruitment of health care providers into
the TRICARE provider networks is hampered by TRICARE provider
reimbursement rates which are unusually low, compared to the
prevailing local or other governmental reimbursement rates.
Section 717--Reimbursement for Certain Travel Expenses
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse TRICARE beneficiaries for their reasonable expenses
incurred while traveling to a referral more than 100 miles from
the location at which they normally receive their primary care
services. Provisions under TRICARE managed care support
contracts require network providers to limit their referrals to
specialists available within a one hour drive. However,
exceptions are allowed under certain circumstances. These so
called ``drive time waivers'' can require TRICARE beneficiaries
to travel great distances at their own expense only because a
particular specialist is not available within the local network
of TRICARE providers. To fund this policy change in fiscal year
2001, the committee authorizes an increase of $15.0 million in
the amount requested for the Defense Health Program.
Section 718--Reduction of Catastrophic Cap
This section would reduce the maximum amount retired
TRICARE beneficiaries could pay under TRICARE to $3000 per
family. To fund this policy change in fiscal year 2001, the
committee authorizes an increase of $32.0 million in the amount
requested for the Defense Health Program.
TRICARE beneficiaries not enrolled in TRICARE Prime face
potential medical expenses of up to $7500 per family. The
committee is concerned that as a result of the decreasing
amount of space available care to which the retired beneficiary
population has access, more families of retired military
personnel who are not enrolled in TRICARE Prime will face these
burdensome medical expenses.
Section 719--Report on Protections Against Health Care Providers
Seeking Direct Reimbursement from Members of the Uniformed Services
The section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report by January 31, 2001, to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on
ways to discourage or prohibit TRICARE health care providers
from seeking inappropriate direct reimbursement from military
service members or their families for eligible health care
services.
The committee is concerned that the financial credit status
of military service members or their family members is being
adversely affected by the inability of health care providers to
receive reimbursements from TRICARE in a timely manner.
Section 720--Disenrollment Process for TRICARE Retiree Dental Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
permit retirees who enrolled in the Department of Defense
Retiree Dental Program to disenroll from the program under
certain circumstances.
Subtitle C-Health Care Programs for Medicare-Eligible Department of
Defense Beneficiaries
Section 721--Implementation of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program
This section would authorize establishment of the TRICARE
Senior Pharmacy Program. The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program
would provide Medicare eligible military retirees and their
eligible family members the same pharmacy benefit as is
currently available to other military health care beneficiaries
through the TRICARE preferred provider and fee-for-service
options commonly referred to as TRICARE Extra and TRICARE
Standard. No enrollment fee or premium would be required, but
the co-pays and out of network deductible expenses normally
associated with these programs would apply. Participation in
the program would also require Medicare-eligible military
retirees and their eligible family members to be enrolled in
the Medicare Part B supplemental medical insurance program. The
TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program would make available the full
range of prescription pharmaceuticals now offered through the
Department of Defense TRICARE uniform formulary and preserves
the beneficiaries' right to choose a non-network pharmacy when
that is their best choice. Participants in the TRICARE Senior
Pharmacy Program would continue to be eligible to use the
pharmacies located in military treatment facilities. To fund
this requirement in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes
an increase of $94.0 million in the amount requested for the
Defense Health Program.
Section 722--Study on Health Care Options for Medicare-Eligible
Military Retirees
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study on alternatives for providing continued health
care benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees. The
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to conduct
the study through an agreement with a federally funded research
and development center (FFRDC) and require the Secretary of
Defense to appoint an independent committee to advise the
Secretary and the FFRDC on the conduct of the study. To fund
this requirement in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes
an increase of $2.0 million in the amount requested for the
Defense Health Program.
Section 723--Extended Coverage Under Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program
This section would extend the period of the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) demonstration program
for one year and would require the Secretary of Defense to take
the necessary actions to encourage participation in the program
to its full-authorized enrollment level of 66,000 persons.
The committee is concerned that the FEHBP demonstration
program has not attracted sufficient retirees to be considered
a true test of its value as an alternative source of health
care benefits for military retirees. In the selection of
additional sites for this program, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to select at least one site with at least
5,000 military retirees served by multiple military
installations. The committee expects such a site would show
evidence that retirees are heavily reliant on the local
Department of Veterans Administration hospitals and outpatient
clinics, thereby demonstrating the attractiveness of the FEHBP
option relative to Departments of Defense and Veterans
Administration facilities. The committee also expects such a
site to be representative of both urban and rural populations
in order to test the attractiveness of theFEHBP option for
persons with easy access to military treatment facilities as well as
those residing in locations more remote from military treatment
facilities.
The committee is aware that some beneficiaries are
reluctant to sign up for the FEHBP program because of concerns
about health insurance availability, without any assurance of
continuation in the elected FEHBP option, when the test period
ends. Congress anticipated this concern in the original
authorization for the program and provided assured availability
of standard Medigap plans. Unfortunately, the Department of
Defense marketing materials for this demonstration program
failed to effectively convey this assurance thereby leading
potential enrollees to believe they might be without any health
insurance options at the conclusion of the demonstration
program. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary to
modify all marketing materials in such a way as to make clear
to potential enrollees that alternative health care insurance
will be available at the conclusion of the demonstration
project.
Section 724--Extension of TRICARE Senior Supplement Program
This section would extend the period of the TRICARE Senior
Supplement Program for one year. The committee is concerned
that several Department of Defense TRICARE demonstration
programs will not be in effect for sufficient time to permit a
complete evaluation of their desirability as an alternative
TRICARE benefit or their effectiveness as health benefit
management tools.
Section 725--Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration Project
This section would extend to December 31, 2003, the Senior
Prime Demonstration to make the project consistent with the
termination date of other demonstration projects.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 731--Training in Health Care Management and Administration
The section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services on the continued
implementation of section 715 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
This section would increase the number of senior management
positions requiring professional management and administrative
experience. Section 715 directed the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report on the training of Department of Defense
health care managers. Since the submission of that report, the
TRICARE managed care environment has changed significantly and
even more change lies on the horizon. The committee is
concerned that Department of Defense personnel are not being
properly prepared before being assigned to duties requiring
expert knowledge of the managed care environment.
Section 732--Study of Accrual Financing for Health Care for Military
Retirees
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study on the feasibility and desirability of
financing the military health care program for uniformed
services retirees on an accrual basis. The committee expects
the study be conducted by an organization, which has expertise
in financial programs, retirement systems, actuarial
methodologies and health care financing and is independent of
the Department of Defense. To fund this requirement in fiscal
year 2001, the committee authorizes an increase of $2.0 million
in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program.
Section 733--Tracking Patient Safety in Military Medical Treatment
Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
implement a system of indicators, standards, and protocols
necessary to track patient safety. The Department of Defense
does not have a process to systematically report, compile and
analyze errors in the provision of health care under the
Defense Health Program.
Section 734--Pharmaceutical Identification Technology
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
implement a pharmaceutical bar code identification program to
improve the safety of Department of Defense pharmacy programs.
The committee notes that similar pharmaceutical bar code
identification applications utilized by the private sector have
resulted in significant improvements in patient safety.
Section 735--Management of Vaccine Immunization Program
This section would strengthen Congressional oversight of
the Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program
(AVIP). The Department of Defense Inspector General and the
Defense Contract Audit Agency have both been critical of the
management of financial aspects of the program. The committee
is concerned that poor financial practices could lead to
wasteful expenditures. The committee is also concerned that
these practices, if continued, could undermine service members'
confidence in the program itself. Therefore, the committee
would require the Secretary of Defense to implement several
initiatives to strengthen oversight of the program. These
actions include: require the Secretary to keep track of and
report separations resulting from refusal to participate in the
program; require clear guidance for emergency essential
civilian personnel who are participating in AVIP; require the
Secretary of Defense to put uniform medical and administrative
exemptions into regulation; improve the system for the
monitoring of adverse reactions including ``active
surveillance'' and long term follow-up; require the Secretary
of Defense to develop a plan of action for modernizing all-
force protection immunizations and avoid using a single
manufacturer wherever possible; require reports on financial
and overall program management.
Section 736--Study on Feasibility of Sharing Biomedical Research
Facility
Modern biomedical research requires highly sophisticated
equipment, sufficient research facilities and a highly skilled
and educated workforce. The committee recognizes the desire of
the Army to expand its research capabilities and commends its
efforts to partner with the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), particularly at the Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC).
The partnering successes between TAMC, VA and the School of
Medicine at the University of Hawaii (UH) has allowed for
further collaboration. The committee understands that the Army
is interested in expanding their research capabilities, but
acknowledges the scarcity of funds to expand research. The
committee believes that it would be advantageous for the Army
to conduct a feasibility study for a medical research facility
to be shared by TAMC, VA, and UH that includes a clinical
research center, educational, academic, and laboratory research
space to better leverage its limited research funds. The
committee authorizes an additional $2.5 million in the amount
requested for the Defense Health Program to fund this study.
Section 737--Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active Duty
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services a plan to phase in over a period of
five years, permanent chiropractic services for all active duty
military personnel. This section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to continue to provide the same level of
chiropractic health care services and benefits during fiscal
year 2001 as were provided during fiscal year 2000. The
committee intends that the scope of services offered under this
section would include, at a minimum, care for neuro-
musculoskeletal conditions typical among military personnel on
active duty. The committee does not intend that the scope of
chiropractic services should be limited to the treatment of
conditions of the lower back.
Section 738--VA/DOD Sharing Agreements for Health Services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to give
full force and effect to any sharing agreement entered into
between the Veterans Health Administration and the Department
of Defense treatment facilities. The section would also require
the Secretary of Defense over the next year to review all
sharing agreements.
The committee is concerned that some payments from the
Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs
under existing VA/DOD sharing agreements are not being made in
accordance with the agreements.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Procurement of Military Clothing and Clothing-Related Items by Military
Installations in the United States
Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) the Department of Defense
Inspector General performed an audit of purchases of military
clothing and clothing-related items in excess of the micro-
purchase threshold by military installations during fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 to determine the extent to which such
procurements did not comply with the Buy American Act. The
committee is concerned with the number of violations of the Buy
American Act identified in the audit. The committee directs the
Department of Defense Inspector General to perform a follow-up
audit on the purchases of military clothing and clothing-
related items in excess of the micro-purchase threshold by
military installations during fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The
audit shall also include an evaluation of DOD actions, if any,
taken since the original audit in order to improve compliance
by military installations with the Buy American Act.
Compliance with Applicable Labor Laws in Procurement of Military
Clothing
The Secretary of Defense shall report to the congressional
defense committees, no later than April 1, 2001, any
information indicating non-compliance with applicable labor
laws by contractors supplying military clothing and clothing-
related items. Emphasis shall be placed on proper wage payments
and scales. This information shall be gathered pursuant to
compliance checking required by part 22 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 801--Extension of Authority for Department of Defense
Acquisition Pilot Programs; Reports Required
This section would amend the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355) to extend until
fiscal year 2005 the acquisition pilot programs originally
authorized by that Act. This section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to submit, no later than January 1, 2001,
a report evaluating the success of these pilot programs.
Section 802--Technical Data Rights for Items Developed Exclusively at
Private Expense
This section would amend section 2320 of title 10, United
States Code, by modifying the circumstances under which a
contractor would be considered responsive to a solicitation.
This section would authorize the Department to negotiate with a
potential contractor the United States rights to technical
data, developed exclusively at private expense, when the
technical data is necessary for normal operations, maintenance,
installation, or training. This section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations describing the
difference between normal and critical operations, maintenance,
installation, or training.
Section 803--Management of Acquisition of Mission-Essential Software
for Major Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to designate a
Director of Mission-Essential Software Management. The Director
would oversee development and management of software embedded
in software intensive defense acquisition programs.
The committee expects the Director to seek advice from a
wide range of organizations and officials, including the Chief
Information Officer for the Department of Defense and the
Software Program Managers Network. The committee also expects
the Director to examine issues best software management
practices such as a set of standard metrics, strong risk
management analysis, interoperability, and opportunities for
reuse of software.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees, no later than
March 1, 2001, that identifies plans implemented and
recommendations made to improve the acquisition, management,
development, and maintenance of mission essential software for
major defense acquisition programs. The report shall also
describe any necessary legislation needed to carry out plans
and recommendations.
Section 804--Extension of Waiver Period for Live-Fire Survivability
Testing for MH-47E and MH-60K Helicopter Modification Programs
This section would amend section 142 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-
484) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive the
survivability testing requirements of section 2366 of title 10,
United States Code, for the MH-47E and MH-60 K helicopters
prior to full materiel release of those systems.
Section 805--Three-Year Extension of Authority of Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects
This section would amend section 845 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
160), by extending for three years the authority of the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, the military departments,
and other officials designated by the Secretary of Defense to
carry out prototype projects using transactions other than
contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants, which must be
executed with statutes or regulations applicable to contracts.
The committee believes that other transaction authority is
an important acquisition tool that facilitates integration of
the civilian and military industrial bases andincorporation of
commercial technology into military weapon systems. The flexibility of
the other transaction authority provides the Department the opportunity
to streamline the procurement process, facilitate development of
contractor strategic relationship, take advantage of innovative or
commercial business practices, and attract companies that do not
traditionally do business with the Department of Defense. In an
environment where commercial industry is leading defense in many
technological areas and defense budgets are declining, it is imperative
that the Department continue to have the flexibility provided by this
tool to use innovative contractual instruments that provide the
opportunity to broaden the technology and industrial base or foster new
relationships and practices that support our national security.
Section 806--Certification of Major Automated Information Systems as to
Compliance with Clinger-Cohen Act
This section would require that in each of the next three
fiscal years the Department of Defense Chief Information
Officer certify that each major automated information system is
in compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 prior to
granting milestone approval. This section would also require
the Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense to
notify the Congressional defense committees upon each decision
to label a major automated information system as a special
interest major technology initiative.
Section 807--Limitations on Procurement of Certain Items
This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United
States Code, to extend the limitations on the procurement of
ball bearings and roller bearings. This section would also
extend the limitations on the procurement of naval valves for
another three fiscal years, and authorize limitations on the
procurement of polyacrylonitrile based carbon fiber for the
next three fiscal years.
Section 808--Multiyear Services Contracts
This section would amend section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that this section applies to the
multiyear procurement of property, as well as to the multiyear
procurement of services.
Section 809--Study on Impact of Foreign Sourcing of Systems on Long-
Term Military Readiness and Related Industrial Infrastructure
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
study and provide a report to Congress on whether parts,
components, and materials of certain systems are obtained
through domestic sources or from foreign sources, and the
impact on military readiness of purchasing such items from
foreign sources.
Section 810--Prohibition Against Use of Department of Defense Funds to
Give or Withhold a Preference to a Marketer or Vendor of Firearms or
Ammunition
This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from
using a preference for the procurement of items from a marketer
or vendor of firearms or ammunition that has entered into an
agreement to abide by a designated code of conduct, operating
practice, or product design.
Section 811--Study and Report on Practice of Contract Bundling in
Military Construction Contracts
This section would require the General Accounting Office to
study the use of ``contract bundling'' in military construction
contracts. A report on the study findings would be due to the
congressional defense committees no later than February 1,
2001.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
The committee notes that section 914 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) required the Secretary of Defense to establish a Center for
the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense
University. Although the Secretary established this center on
March 1, 2000, the committee is concerned that the Department
of Defense has not placed sufficient priority on ensuring that
the center can carry out its mandate. The committee is
especially concerned that the Department has not identified a
source of funding for the center to allow it to proceed with
hiring a permanent director and implementing the research,
conference, and other activities for which the center was
established.
The committee reiterates its belief that the center should
play a central role in assessing political, strategic, and
military developments within the People's Republic of China and
the security implications of the evolving U.S.-China
relationship. The committee believes the importance of the
center is highlighted by recent developments in the evolution
of Chinese military capability and strategic thought.
The committee believes that these developments reinforce
the need to move forward rapidly with the appointment of a
permanent director for the center by June 1, 2000, and to
ensure that the center is fully operational by June 1, 2001, as
required by Public Law 106-65. The committee is aware of
proposals by the center's interim director for the center to
identify and hire research scholars, create a high-level Board
of Visitors, establish a working group, and conduct at least
one conference this year. The committee encourages the
Department to provide adequate funding to the center in order
to allow planned activities to proceed in a timely manner.
Finally, the committee expects the Department to facilitate
the center's mission of informing government policymakers,
including Congress, of the national goals and strategic posture
of the People's Republic of China and that country's ability to
develop and deploy effective military power in support of its
national strategic objectives. In this regard, the committee
expects the Secretary of Defense to provide the committee with
regular reports on the activities and research findings of the
center.
Management Headquarters
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for the Department of Defense supports an estimated
60,867 positions performing management headquarters functions,
an increase in personnel of nearly 30 percent over the revised
fiscal year 1999 level as reported to Congress in March of this
year. The committee is aware that this personnel increase is a
result of a statutorily mandated directive contained in section
921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-65), which was intended to more accurately
capture the Department's personnel level of effort in support of
management headquarters activities.
The committee continues to strongly believe that management
headquarters reductions must be in alignment with overall
personnel cuts that have occurred throughout the Department.
However, the fiscal year 2001 budget request, after adjusting
for the revised baseline, only reduces management headquarters
positions by 734 from the fiscal year 2000 estimate, far below
the mandated 3,182 positions required by section 921.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of funding for
management headquarters activities as provided elsewhere in
this report.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 901--Change of Title of Certain Positions in the Headquarters,
Marine Corps
This section would abolish the positions of Chief of Staff
and Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff from Headquarters,
Marine Corps, authorized by sections 5041 and 5045 of title 10,
United States Code, respectively. This section would also
authorize five Deputy Commandant positions within the Marine
Corps. The committee understands that this section would not
change the current staffing requirements of the Marine Corps.
Section 902--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and Support
Workforce
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
implement 13,000 reductions in the Defense acquisition
workforce in fiscal year 2001. This section would also direct
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by May 1, 2001, containing an implementation plan for
re-shaping, recruiting, and sustaining the Department's
acquisition workforce and any changes in statutory authorities
that the Secretary deems necessary.
The committee is aware that the Department has programmed
personnel reductions of 11,800 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in
fiscal year 2001 in the defense acquisition workforce, as
defined in section 931 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261).
Since 1996, however, the Department has exceeded its annual
reduction goals within the acquisition workforce. The committee
supports continued reductions in this area for the purposes of
reducing costly overhead, encouraging cross-functional
acquisition relationships between the military services, and
improving the acquisition process. In addition, the committee
believes the Department must reorganize and streamline its
acquisition structure to capitalize on rapidly changing
technology and industry practices.
Section 903--Clarification of Scope of Inspector General Authorities
under Military Whistleblower Law
This section would authorize the inspectors general of the
defense agencies and joint service organizations and civilian
employees assigned as inspectors general elsewhere within the
Department of Defense to receive and process protected
communications and reprisal allegations from members of the
armed forces under section 1034 of title 10, United States
Code.
Section 904--Report on Number of Personnel Assigned to Legislative
Liaison Functions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services a report identifying all personnel
assigned to legislative affairs and legislative liaison offices
throughout the military departments and all defense agencies
not later than December 1, 2000.
The committee has long benefited from the Department's
various legislative affairs offices and relies on these offices
to provide timely and accurate information and to respond to
numerous inquires daily. However, the committee is concerned by
the increasing number of legislative affairs, or liaison
offices throughout the Department. The committee notes that
there are now legislative affairs or legislative liaison
offices at nearly every unified and specified command, at major
military commands, and at most defense agencies. The committee
questions how the necessary coordination between these separate
various offices and the primary legislative affairs offices of
the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military
departments can be effectively accomplished.
Section 905--Joint Report on Establishment of National Collaborative
Information Analysis Capability
The committee is aware of the emerging capability to
collect and analyze information using the latest computer
technology to leverage the ability of analysts. The committee
notes that this capability to discern meaningful intelligence
from disparate data has, to this moment, been best demonstrated
through the work of the Army's Land Information Warfare
Activity's (LIWA) recent analysis conducted at the request of
the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
The committee believes that this data mining capability
must be rapidly and fully developed as strong foundation for
future efforts to support national defense against new and
growing worldwide asymmetrical threats.
The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to
determine the proper architecture for a collaborative
operations and analysis capability to fuse the distributed
efforts of the more than thirty appropriate entities into a
national level center. However, the committee realizes that
several approaches are under consideration, including the Joint
Counterintelligence Assessment Group and the National Analysis
and Operations Hub concepts. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision, (sec. 905) that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence
to prepare a joint report assessing alternatives for the
establishment of a national information analysis capability.
The provision would also require that the Secretary of Defense
take maximum advantage of the data mining, profiling and
analysis capability of the LIWA.
Section 906--Organization and Management of Civil Air Patrol
This section would revise section 9441 of title 10, United
States Code to define more clearly the relationship between the
United States Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). This
section would also authorize a new board of governors for the
CAP to include representatives from the Air Force, the CAP, and
from outside interests, and would also make numerous changes in
the organization of the CAP to improve administrative and
financial management.
Section 907--Report on Network Centric Warfare
This section would require a report on Network Centric
Warfare (NCW). It would require the Secretary of Defense to
clearly define NCW, and outline the conceptual, doctrinal and
operational concepts surrounding NCW. It would also require the
Secretary to outline how NCW is related the overall strategy
for military transformation. Finally, the Secretary would be
required to report on any acquisition programs and experiments
that are planned or currently underway that relate to NCW.
Historically, revolutions in military affairs (RMA) have
occurred when new technologies imbedded in a significant number
of military systems, combined with innovative operational
concepts, have fundamentally altered the nature of armed
conflict. This combination often significantly increases the
combat power and military effectiveness of military forces. The
committee recognizes that due to the rapid advances in
information technology, such a condition may exist today.
One possible concept proposed in relation to the emerging
RMA is the idea of Network Centric Warfare (NCW). According to
proponents, NCW will integrate emerging technologies to create
a ``system-of-systems'' that will enable the U.S. military to
apply force with dramatically greater efficiency while
simultaneously reducing the risk to U.S. forces. While there
has been much discussion of this concept within the Department,
no consensus on the definition, operational concepts, doctrine,
programs or experiments relating to NCW has emerged. The
committee also recognizes that some detractors are critical of
NCW believing it is an attempt to impose a technically rigid
theory of warfare on the inherent chaos of armed conflict.
The committee believes this to be an important debate and
recognizes the potential enhancement in military capability
that could result from transformation concepts such as NCW.
Therefore, the committee looks forward to the Department's
assessment and to the resultant debate on this issue.
Section 908--Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
establish and operate the Defense Institute for Hemispheric
Security Cooperation. The purpose of the Defense Institute for
Hemispheric Security Cooperation would be to provide
professional education and training to military, law
enforcement, and civilian personnel of nations of the Western
Hemisphere in defense and security matters. The section would
require that the curriculum of the Institute include a minimum
of eight hours of instruction per student in human rights, the
rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and
the role of the military in a democratic society. The section
would additionally establish a board of visitors to oversee the
activities and curriculum of the Institute and require the
board to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense and, in
turn, to Congress. This section would strike the authority for
the Secretary of the Army to operate the School of the Americas
contained in section 4415 of title 10, United States Code, and
direct the Secretary of Defense to take such steps as he deems
necessary to ensure that the Secretary of the Army provides for
the transition of the School of the Americas into the Defense
Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation.
The committee affirms its long-standing support for the
mission of the Army School of the Americas to enhance military
professionalism and respect for democratic values throughout
Latin America. The committee notes the significant contribution
the School has played in advancing democratization in the
hemisphere over the past two decades. However, the committee is
aware of persistent concerns that the School of the Americas
does not focus sufficient classroom attention upon critical
issues such as rule of law and civilian control of the military
within the countries of Latin America. While the committee
believes that these concerns are unfounded, the committee
recognizes the need to implement fundamental changes to the
School of the Americas to ensure that its student curriculum is
properly structured. Accordingly, the committee proposes to
eliminate the School of the Americas and establish in its place
the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. The
committee believes that the establishment of a board of
visitors with a broad mandate to examine the activities and
curriculum of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security
Cooperation will serve to address any future concerns
associated with the operations of the program.
The committee believes a relationship should exist between
the duration of courses offered at the Institute and
instruction in human rights, rule of law, due process, civilian
control of the military, and the role of the military in a
democratic society. Accordingly, the committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to consider initiatives to increase such
instruction beyond eight hours, where practicable. The
committee recommends the Secretary consider a minimum of twelve
hours of instruction in human rights, rule of law, due process,
civilian control of the military, and the role of the military
in a democratic society for each student attending courses of
the Institute for up to eight weeks duration; twenty four hours
of instruction for courses between eight and fifteen weeks
duration; and forty hours of instruction for courses over
fifteen weeks duration.
Section 909--Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security
Studies
This section would consolidate in title 10, United States
Code, various authorities that currently exist regarding the
operation of Department of Defense regional centers for
security studies. It would also require congressional
notification of an intent to establish additional regional
centers and an annual report to Congress by the Secretary of
Defense on the status, objectives, and operations of the
regional centers.
Section 910--Change in Name of Armed Forces Staff College to Joint
Forces Staff College
The section would strike the reference to Armed Forces
Staff College contained in section 2165 of title 10, United
States Code, and insert in its place Joint Forces Staff
College.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2001 for counter-drug
activities includes an expanding commitment by the Department
of Defense to support the government of Colombia in its
counter-drug efforts. In particular, the budget request would
support the training and equipping of two Colombian army
counter-drug battalions in addition to naval riverine units,
upgrade Colombian military aircraft, and expand intelligence
collection in Colombia. The committee notes with concern that
the budget request continues the trend of requesting
authorization of appropriations for foreign military assistance
through the Department of Defense as opposed to the Department
of State.
The committee is aware that the escalating production of
cocaine and heroin in Colombia has fueled the ongoing conflict
between the government of Colombia and armed insurgents and
paramilitary groups. The increasing level of violence within
Colombia continues to cause instability throughout the region
and has specifically strained the ability of the governments of
Panama, Ecuador, and Peru to respond adequately to incursions
by Colombian drug trafficking organizations, guerrillas, and
paramilitary forces. The committee recognizes the important
contribution that the Department of Defense can play in support
of these regional allies as part of a comprehensive and
coordinated effort by the United States to contain the drug
trade. However, as noted in the committee report on H.R. 1401
(H. Rept. 106-162), the committee remains concerned with the
appropriateness of expanding the role of the Department of
Defense in support of Colombian governmental security forces
and, in particular, the force protection risks for U.S.
military personnel stationed or assigned to temporary duty in
Colombia.
The committee continues to support a robust Department of
Defense counter-drug program and notes the challenges to U.S.
Southern Command with the 1999 closure of Howard Air Force Base
in Panama that served as a key installation for aircraft
monitoring the source and transit zones. The committee notes
that long-term agreements for the establishment of forward
operating locations (FOLs) for drug interdiction purposes at
Manta, Ecuador, and Curacao and Aruba in the Netherlands
Antilles, were recently secured and that limited operations are
ongoing at these sites. The committee also notes the testimony
provided by senior officials of the Department of Defense that
an FOL in Central America is crucial in confronting drug
trafficking by the way of the Eastern Pacific. The committee
has raised concern over the prior two fiscal years that the
Department has failed to resource adequately the gaps in
Eastern Pacific detection and monitoring despite increased
usage by maritime drug traffickers. Therefore, the committee is
encouraged that a long-term FOL agreement with the government
of El Salvador is pending and urges the Secretary of the Navy,
as executive agent, to utilize fully such an FOL for the
conduct of detection and monitoring flights over the Eastern
Pacific transit zone.
Funding
The budget request for counter-drug activities contained
$836.3 million for drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities, in addition to $155.9 million for operational
tempo, which is included within the operating budgets of the
military services. The budget request represents a net increase
of $48.2 million from the fiscal year 2000 budget request of
$788.1 million, and a decrease of $10.6 million for operational
tempo from the previous budget request of $166.5 million. The
committee understands that the overall increase in the fiscal
year 2001 counter-drug budget request is attributed to
increased activities in Colombia.
The committee recommends authorization for Department of
Defense counter-drug activities as follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
FY01 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request................. $836,300
Educate America's Youth................................... 23,029
Increase Safety of Citizens............................... 81,974
Reduce Health & Social Costs.............................. 74,754
Shield America's Frontiers................................ 339,486
Break Drug Sources of Supply.............................. 317,057
Recommended Decreases:
Air National Guard Fighter Operations..................... 5,000
Coastal Patrol Equipment Procurement...................... 3,000
Recommended Increases:
Operation Caper Focus..................................... 6,000
Puerto Rico ROTHR Security................................ 1,200
Southwest Border Fence.................................... 6,000
Recommendation................................................ 841,500
Items of Special Interest
Air National Guard Fighter Operations
The committee notes the fighter operations of the Air
National Guard previously located at Howard Air Force Base,
Panama, in support of the Department of Defense counter-drug
program have relocated to Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, and
are currently conducting operations. The committee further
notes that in fiscal year 1999, the Air National Guard was
funded at $7.2 million for this purpose. The fiscal year 2001
budget request included $15.8 million for this purpose, due in
part to the high cost of temporary duty for pilots and crews in
Curacao. However, the committee believes the budget request
significantly overstates the actual costs associated with
planned operations and, therefore, recommends a reduction of
$5.0 million for this purpose.
Coastal Patrol equipment procurement
The budget request contained $3.0 million for the continued
installation of Combatant Craft Retrieval Systems (CCRS) on two
Navy Coastal Patrol ships. The committee is aware that such
equipment supports various activities of the Special Operations
Command, but understands that CCRS provides slight benefit for
the conduct of counter-drug operations. Accordingly, the
committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million for this
program.
Operation Caper Focus
The committee notes with concern that the budget request
failed to support fully Operation Caper Focus, a valuable,
ongoing operation to disrupt maritime narcotics trafficking in
the Eastern Pacific. The committee continues to support
strongly this important operation and, therefore, recommends an
increase of $6.0 million for this purpose.
Puerto Rico ROTHR security
The committee understands the Relocatable Over-The-Horizon
Radar (ROTHR) based in Puerto Rico will greatly enhance the
effectiveness of the interagency effort to curtail the flow of
illegal narcotics into the United States. The committee
supports strongly the ROTHR program but notes with concern that
the Navy's planned transfer of land on the western side of
Vieques, Puerto Rico, would leave the ROTHR without adjacent
federal property. The Navy, as executive agent for the program,
recognizes the inadequacy of its force protection plan for the
ROTHR but the committee notes the budget request does not
contain funding for this purpose. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $1.2 million for security
enhancements of the ROTHR facility.
Southwest border fence
The committee remains concerned with the increased
smuggling of narcotics across the Southwest border in the San
Diego County, California, area. The committee is aware that the
Southwest border continues to be one of the most heavily
utilized drug trafficking corridors into the United States.
Accordingly, the committee believes that existing fence and
road-building activities must continue and recommends an
increase of $6.0 million for this purpose.
OTHER MATTERS
Quadrennial Defense Review
The committee reiterates its concern over the pending
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Previous attempts to define
U.S. national security interests in the post-Cold War world
have been less than satisfactory, as have efforts to identify
the proper national military strategy and the force structure
required to execute that strategy. The committee has previously
expressed its view that any defense strategy should be designed
to protect the full range of U.S. national security interests
and that forces should be sufficient to do so at the lowest
possible risk.
The committee reemphasizes this view and reminds the
Department that the QDR should be driven by the demands of
strategy and should not be constrained by any presupposition
about the size of future defense budgets. Previous reviews,
including the 1996 Quadrennial Defense Review and the 1993
Bottom-Up Review, were budget-driven exercises that reduced the
size of the armed forces by approximately 40 percent from 1991
levels. Neither study recommended a substantial change to the
way the services were structured or organized. This reduced
force, coupled with a national security strategy of
``engagement and enlargement,'' has increased operations tempo
300 percent over Cold War levels.
Currently, the force is ostensibly sized and structured to
fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts.
However, the requirement to forward deploy forces on an ever-
increasing number of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions on
a rotational basis with a force designed to fight major theater
wars has strained military readiness. In addition, the
committee believes that not enough attention is paid by the
Department of Defense to future threats facing this nation and
the requirement to maintain forces to meet these threats. These
include the rise of a near-peer competitor and the difficulties
posed by asymmetric threats, including weapons of mass
destruction, improved ballistic missile technology, and cyber-
attacks against critical infrastructure.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take a
comprehensive approach to the QDR and to develop an honest and
realistic assessment of the vital national security interests
of this nation. With these interests in mind, the QDR should
provide recommendations for a force that is sized and
structured to meet the challenges of this new era.
Department of Defense Personnel Security Investigation Requirements
Priorities
The federal government uses personnel security
investigations to determine whether individuals should be
granted access to classified information. These investigations
are a critical first step in safeguarding national security
information. The committee is concerned over the results of a
review conducted by the Comptroller General that established
that Department of Defense personnel security investigations
are often incomplete and are not conducted in a timely manner.
Moreover, there does not seem to be a prioritization scheme for
these investigations to ensure that those with the most
sensitive duties are investigated first and subject to more
frequent review and update.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in conjunction with the service secretaries and heads of
defense agencies, to develop a means of quantifying
requirements for personnel security investigations for
clearances and of prioritizing categories of personnel involved
in duties requiring access to the most sensitive national
security information. This prioritization scheme should ensure
that personnel with sensitive positions should be subject to
background investigation review and update at least every five
years to ensure the currency of relevant information. Priority
categoriesshould be used to guide the submission and
expeditious completion of background investigations on personnel with
the most sensitive duties. The Secretary shall submit a report
describing the Department's efforts to establish a prioritization
scheme and to provide more timely and complete personnel security
investigations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services no later than March 1, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle Au--Financial Matters
Section 1001--Transfer Authority
This section would permit the transfer of amounts of
authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any
fiscal year to any other authorization made available in
Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that
such a transfer would be in the national interest. The
provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming
involving the transfer of authorization between amounts
authorized as set out in bill language.
The authority to transfer could only be used to provide
authorization for higher priority items than the items from
which authorization was transferred and could not be used to
provide authorization for an item that was denied authorization
by Congress. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
notify the Congress promptly of transfers. The total amount of
transfers would be limited to $2.0 billion. Historically, the
transfer authority authorized has changed as follows:
Billions
FY85-88........................................................... 2.00
FY89-91........................................................... 3.00
FY92.............................................................. 2.25
FY93.............................................................. 1.50
FY94-00........................................................... 2.00
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex
This section would incorporate the classified annex
prepared by the Committee on Armed Services into the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
Section 1003--Authorization of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 2000
This section would extend authorization to those defense
items appropriated pursuant to the 2000 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act. Specifically, $5,254,346,000 of national
defense appropriations in the Act would be authorized as
follows:
Department of Defense
Title I, Chapter 2:
$185,800,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense.
Title I, Chapter 4:
$116,523,000 for Military Construction, Defense-Wide.
Title II, Chapter 2:
$19,532,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army;
$20,565,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy;
$37,155,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps;
$30,065,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force;
$40,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide;
$2,174,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army
Reserve;
$2,851,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army
National Guard;
$2,050,400,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations
Transfer Fund;
$73,000,000 for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force;
$3,533,000 for Defense Health Program.
Section 2202:
$1,556,200,000 for Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund.
Section 2204:
$125,000,000 for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked
Combat Vehicles, Army.
Section 2205:
$854,500,000 for Defense Health Program.
Title II, Chapter 4:
$12,348,000 for Military Construction, Army Reserve.
Section 2401:
$2,000,000 for Family Housing, Army.
$3,000,000 for Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps.
$1,700,000 for Family Housing, Air Force.
Department of Energy
Title III, Chapter 3:
$63,000,000 for Other Defense Activities.
Title IV, Chapter 1:
$55,000,000 for Weapons Activities.
Section 1004--Contingent Repeal of Certain Provisions Shifting Certain
Outlays from One Fiscal Year to Another
This section would repeal, subject to inclusion in
appropriations acts, provisions of fiscal year 2000
appropriations acts that delayed obligations of Department of
Defense funds for pay and benefits and progress payments.
Section 1005--Limitation on Funds for Bosnia and Kosovo Peacekeeping
Operations for Fiscal Year 2001
This section would limit the amount of funds available for
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo to the amounts
contained in the budget request, $1,387.8 million for
operations in Bosnia and $1,650.4 million for operations in
Kosovo. The provision would authorize the president to waive
the limitation after submitting to the Congress a written
certification that the waiver is necessary to the national
security interests of the United States. This section would
also require a written certification that the exercise of the
waiver will not adversely affect the readiness of U.S. military
forces; a report setting forth the reasons for the waiver, a
discussion of the impact of the involvement of U.S. military
forces in Balkans peacekeeping operations on U.S. military
readiness; and a supplemental appropriations request for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2001 costs associated
with U.S. military forces participating in, or supporting,
Bosnia or Kosovo peacekeeping operations.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1011--National Defense Features Program
This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United
States Code, to permit the payment to a vessel operator, as
consideration for making a vessel available to the government
on such terms as the Secretary of Defense or secretary of a
military department and the operator agree, amounts equal to
the cost of maintaining the vessel in a 4 day Reduced Operating
Status (ROS-4) condition in the Ready Reserve Fleet for a
period of 25 years.
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1021--Report on Department of Defense Expenditures to Support
Foreign Counter-Drug Activities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
January 1, 2001, detailing the total amount and type of, and
legal basis for, foreign counter-drug assistance provided by
the Department of Defense during fiscal year 2000.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
increased its level of counter-drug assistance to foreign law
enforcement agencies and militaries in recent years. As part of
the fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Department requested
additional authority to directly support the governments of
Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador. Under section 1004 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-
510) and section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), the Department is
presently authorized to support various types of foreign
assistance ranging from equipment maintenance to military
training and intelligence sharing. While the committee
recognizes the important role of the Department of Defense in
supporting regional allies in combating the flow of illegal
narcotics into the United States, the committee believes that
any additional counter-drug authorities for the Department
should be considered only after a comprehensive review of the
current foreign counter-drug support activities of the
Department.
Section 1022--Report on Tethered Aerostat Radar System
The section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, to submit to
Congress a report on the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS)
by May 1, 2001, that includes the operational availability of
each of the existing TARS sites; a discussion of any plans to
close TARS sites over the next 5 years and a justification for
each proposed closure; a review of the requirements of other
agencies, especially the United States Customs Service, for
TARS data; an assessment of the value of TARS in the conduct of
counter-narcotics, border security, and air sovereignty
operations, and; costs associated with the Department's planned
standardization of the program and the Secretary's analysis of
that standardization.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 1031--Funds for Administrative Expenses Under Defense Export
Loan Guarantee Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
allocate up to $500,000 per year from available Operations and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, funds to administer the Defense
Export Loan Guarantee Program. The provision would require the
Secretary to replenish fully the funds expended under this
authority from fees generated from the loans guaranteed under
the program.
The committee notes the increasing interest in the Defense
Export Loan Guarantee Program recently displayed by domestic
defense industry, eligible countries, and the financial sector.
The committee believes the program has significant potential to
support U.S. national security objectives in certain regions of
the world and believes further that the authority in this
section will provide the stability needed for the effective
long-term management of the program.
Section 1032--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.
Section 1033--Transfer of Vietnam Era TA-4 Aircraft to Nonprofit
Foundation
This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to
convey, without consideration, one surplus TA-4 aircraft to a
nonprofit foundation. This section would also require that any
aircraft transferred under this authority would be completely
demilitarized prior to transfer and that the conveyance would
be at no cost to the United States.
Section 1034--Transfer of 19th Century Cannon to Museum
This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a specific 19th century cannon
that was manufactured in Macon, Georgia, to the Cannonball
House Museum, Macon, Georgia. The section would also direct the
Secretary of the Army to acquire, by donation or purchase, one
or more cannons documented as having been manufactured in
Macon, Georgia, during the Civil War in order to replace the
cannon conveyed to the museum.
Section 1035--Expenditures for Declassification Activities
This section would require that any future budget request
submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense (DOD)
specifically identify, in a single display, funds being
requested for the Department, each military department, and
each defense agency to be used to declassify records to comply
with declassification requirements of any statute or executive
order. This section would also limit the expenditure of funds
by the Department of Defense for the declassification of
records during fiscal year 2001 to no more than $30.0 million.
The review or records for potential declassification and
release to the public can be quite costly. The Department
estimates that records review for declassification and public
release will cost the Department $34.0 million from operation
and maintenance (O&M) accounts during fiscal year 2000. The
committee is concerned about the drain on operations and
maintenance resources resulting from the declassification
process. The O&M accounts, and the readiness accounts in
particular, have been dramatically underfunded for years, a
serious problem that is exacerbated by almost annual unbudgeted
contingency operations. The committee believes that record
declassification is a significantly lower priority for already
scarce O&M funds and believes these funds should be spent
addressing shortfalls in higher priority areas such as
maintenance, training, spare parts, and other key readiness
activities. Consequently, this section would limit the amount
of funds available for the Department's fiscal year 2001
records declassification effort to $30.0 million, the amount
the Department estimates will be necessary for planned record
reviews.
In addition, section 230 of title 10, United States Code
provides that the Secretary of Defense shall provide in budget
justification materials submitted to Congress ``specific
identification, as a budgetary line item, of the amounts
required to carry out'' declassification activities. The
Department of Defense failed to provide in the fiscal year 2001
budget request the required declassification line item. Parts
of the declassification budget request were scattered across
more than 10 budget accounts, and other portions of the
declassification budget request were invisible, having been
imbedded in other budget lines. The committee believes it is
necessary that the full DOD declassification budget be visible
in the annual budget request, so Congress will be better able
to establish appropriate levels for such expenditures.
Therefore, this section would require the Department to include
in future budget request materials a single display reflecting
the total amount requested for records declassification.
Section 1036--Authority to Provide Loan Guarantees to Improve Domestic
Preparedness to Combat Cyberterrorism
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
provide loan guarantees to qualified commercial firms seeking
to improve their critical infrastructure protection. It would
require the Secretary to prescribe regulations providing that
fees assessed for the purpose of loan guarantees be credited to
a special account and be available, to the extent provided in
appropriations acts, to pay administrative expenses associated
with this program. This section would also require the
recipients of loan guarantees to report to the Secretary on the
results of improvements made pursuant to this program, and
would require the Secretary to submit to Congress an annual
report on the loan guarantee program.
Section 1037--V-22 Cockpit Aircraft Voice and Flight Data Recorders
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
require that all V-22 Osprey aircraft be equipped with state-
of-the-art cockpit aircraft voice and flight data recorders
which meet, as a minimum, the National Transportation Safety
Board standards for such devices.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Employment and Compensation Provisions for Employees of
Temporary Organizations Established by Law or Executive Order
This section would provide legislative and executive
agencies the flexibility to use a streamlined process to hire
and pay employees for temporary organizations established by
law or executive order. The committee notes that temporary
organizations are normally established to examine issues of
immediate public concern, yet these organizations are often
slow to begin substantive work due to the lack of established
structures or processes to acquire staff.
Section 1102--Restructuring the Restriction on Degree Training
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
pay tuition for a civilian employee to obtain an academic
degree if that degree training occurs at an accredited
institution and is part of a planned Department of Defense
(DOD) professional development program. The committee supports
education and training programs that the service secretaries
conduct for military personnel, but is concerned that DOD
civilian personnel professional development programs have been
neglected. The committee expects this authority will be used to
enhance the professional abilities of the Department's most
promising civilian employees.
Section 1103--Continuation of Tuition Reimbursement and Training for
Certain Acquisition Personnel
This section would amend section 1745 of title 10, United
States Code, to extend the ``shortage of personnel''
designation for qualified civilian acquisition personnel of the
Department of Defense until September 30, 2005, in order for
such personnel to qualify for eligibility for reimbursement of
expenses for training and tuition. The committee believes such
an extension is necessary to enhance the professional
development of the acquisition workforce of the Department of
Defense.
Section 1104--Extension of Authority for Civilian Employees of the
Department of Defense to Participate Voluntarily in Reductions in Force
This section would amend section 3502 of title 5, United
States Code, to extend to September 30, 2005, the authority of
the Secretary of Defense to allow certain civilian employees to
volunteer for separation under reduction in force procedures
even though those employees would not otherwise be subject to
separation. The committee believes that this program has
ameliorated the disruptive effects of reductions-in-force by
lessening the number of civilian employees who would otherwise
have been involuntarily separated.
Section 1105--Expansion of Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System Positions
This section would amend section 1601 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to create
positions within the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System outside the designated intelligence components of the
Department of Defense. The committee believes that a limited
number of positions should be created outside the designated
intelligence components to establish appropriate career
broadening intelligence related positions within the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence and other activities of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Section 1106--Pilot Program for Reengineering the Equal Employment
Opportunity Complaint Process
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
carry out a pilot program to demonstrate improved processes for
the resolution of equal employment opportunity complaints.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Arms Control Implementation
The budget request contained $219.0 million for arms
control implementation programs, representing a slight decrease
from the fiscal year 2000 current spending level of $222.7
million. The committee recommends $207.5 million, a decrease of
$11.5 million from the budget request.
The committee notes that the budget request assumes the
entry into force of a number of arms control treaties that
remain unratified by all necessary parties. This includes the
Open Skies Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT);
the latter failed a vote on ratification before the United
States Senate. In addition, although the START II Treaty
between the United States and Russia was signed in 1993,
subsequently ratified by the United States Senate, and ratified
by the Russian Duma in April 2000, the Duma has linked Russian
observance of START II to acceptance by the United States of a
Protocol to the START II Treaty that was agreed to by
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in 1997. The START II Treaty
cannot enter into force prior to the Senate giving its advice
and consent to the Protocol to the Treaty, which has yet to be
submitted to the Senate for its consideration.
In light of the delayed entry into force of these treaties,
the committee believes that adjustments to the budget request
are warranted. The committee's recommendation to reduce the
requested level of funding is premised on the belief that funds
should not be expended on activities to comply unilaterally
with treaties that have not yet entered into force. The
committee expects the Department to take this into account in
apportioning the recommended reductions.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1201--Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts to Inspect
and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities
This section would amend section 1505 of the Weapons of
Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 by extending the authority
provided to the Department of Defense under that Act to support
the activities of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification
and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) in fiscal year 2001. This
section would limit assistance provided to UNMOVIC by the
Department of Defense to $15.0 million.
The committee continues to be troubled by the efforts of
Iraq to develop and potentially to militarize weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). The committee strongly believes that the
United Nations must re-establish a robust, long-term monitoring
program in Iraq that includes on-site inspections and remote
surveillance involving cameras, sensors, seismic devices, and
other technology. However, United Nations weapons inspectors
have been barred from entering Iraq since October 1998. The
committee believes the current status-quo is unacceptable and
jeopardizes long-standing U.S. policy that Iraq must be denied
access to ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass
destruction.
The committee notes the adoption by the United Nations
Security Council of Resolution 1284 in December 1999 that
established UNMOVIC as the successor to the United Nations
Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). The committee remains
doubtful that Iraq will fulfill its responsibility to allow
inspections as mandated by the Security Council. However, the
committee supports the Department of Defense's assistance to
UNMOVIC under the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of
1992 and believes the Department should maintain a level of
readiness necessary to ensure the swift resumption of
monitoring missions should future conditions permit.
Section 1202--Annual Report Assessing Effect of Continued Operations in
the Balkans Region on Readiness to Execute the National Military
Strategy
This section would amend section 1035 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) to make annual the reporting requirement of the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report 180 days after enactment
assessing the effects of operations in the Balkans on the
ability of the United States to meet other regional
contingencies and the National Military Strategy. The committee
notes that the slow pace of civil implementation in both
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo will require the United States
and NATO to maintain military forces in the region for the
foreseeable future necessitating an annual reporting
requirement.
The committee further notes with concern that the Army
announced in November 1999 that the two divisions deployed to
the Balkans, the 1st Infantry Division in Kosovo and the 10th
Mountain Division in Kosovo, had been assigned a C-4 readiness
rating. The division commanders of each unit assigned this
rating over concerns that neither division could disengage from
their peacekeeping duties in time to deploy to a major theater
conflict as required by current war plans. These concerns were
subsequently reported in the Department's Quarterly Readiness
Report of the Department of Defense to Congress for that
period, in which the Department expressed concern over the
ability of the armed forces to disengage forces from on-going
contingencies in order to fight major regional conflicts. The
committee believes that as long as the United States has
military forces in the Balkans region conducting peacekeeping
operations, combat readiness will be degraded.
Section 1203--Situation in the Balkans
This section would require the President to establish
militarily significant benchmarks that will create a
sustainable peace in Kosovo and that will facilitate the
withdrawal of US troops from Kosovo. This section would also
require the President to seek concurrence with members of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to establish a
comprehensive political-military strategy toward the situation
in the Balkans. In creating this strategy, this section would
urge the President to take into consideration the benchmarks
already established for the Bosnia peacekeeping mission as well
as those that are to be developed for Kosovo. This section
would also require an initial and subsequent semi-annual
reports on the progress being made toward developing and
implementing a comprehensive strategy in the Balkans. This
section would also require an initial and subsequent semi-
annual reports on the progress being made on the establishment
and implementation of the benchmarks for Kosovo.
The committee remains concerned about the on-going, open-
ended peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and their effect on
military readiness. Since last year, the United States, in
conjunction with the NATO alliance, fought a 78-day air war
against Serbia, followed by the introduction of a peacekeeping
force into the province of Kosovo. These efforts were in
addition to NATO's already extensive commitment to peacekeeping
in Bosnia-Herzegovina that began in 1995. As a result, the
United States has a significant military commitment to
peacekeeping operations in the region.
These extensive military efforts have produced an absence
of war in the Balkans. However, the pace of civil
implementation has lagged far behind the military operations in
both areas. In Bosnia, the slow progress on implementation of
the Dayton Accords has led to questions regarding the duration
of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) mission. Due to the lack of
civil institutions, military forces have assumed many tasks
more appropriately reserved for civilian law enforcement and
judicial institutions. In Kosovo, the final status of the
province remains unresolved. The Kosovar Albanians desire an
independent country, while the Serbs desire the area remain a
province of Serbia. The committee is concerned that several
European nations are not maintaining commitments regarding
promised troop levels in the Kosovo Force (KFOR). The committee
is also concerned that there is a chronic shortage of civilian
international police and that the United Nations Mission in
Kosovo is severely underfunded. Without a clearly defined end-
state, and with unrest between the warring parties continuing,
prospects for stability in Kosovo are bleak.
The committee is concerned that the lack of an overall
strategy in the Balkans, compounded by the continuing
destabilizing influence of Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic, is slowing the pace of civil implementation and
prolonging the military mission in the region. The lack of a
comprehensive strategy ensures that the military missions in
both Bosnia and Kosovo appear vague and open-ended.
The studies conducted by the Government Accounting Office
estimates the cost of U.S. operations in Bosnia and Kosovo to
the Department of Defense at $15.6 billion between fiscal years
1992 and 2000. These operations are projected to cost the
Department $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 alone. These
operations drain funds from modernization and operations and
maintenance accounts. At the same time, the requirement to
maintain large numbers of personnel on a rotational basis in
the region adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to
conduct wartime missions as required by the National Military
Strategy. The increased pace of operations has compelled the
Department to augment active duty units with reserve component
forces in an attempt to relieve the pressure on already over-
committed units.
The committee believes that a comprehensive strategy for
dealing with the Balkans is an essential prerequisite to
lasting stability in the region and the maintenance of the
readiness of the armed forces.
Section 1204--Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in Colombia
This section would restrict funds available to the
Department of Defense to support or maintain more than 500 U.S.
military personnel on duty in Colombia at any time. This
section would exclude from the numerical limitation any U.S.
military personnel who are in Colombia for a period of not more
than 30 days, unless expressly authorized by law, for the
purpose of rescuing or retrieving U.S. military or governmental
personnel. This section would also exempt from the limitation
U.S. military personnel assigned to the U.S. Embassy in
Colombia as an attache, as part of the security assistance
office, or the Marine Corps security contingent; service
members participating in natural disaster relief efforts, and;
non-operational transient military personnel.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $458.4 million for cooperative
threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing a slight
increase of $0.3 million over the amounts appropriated for
fiscal year 2000. The request included $226.2 million for
destruction and dismantlement, $161.1 million for fissile
materials and nuclear weapons safety and storage, $32.1 million
for reactor core conversion in Russia, $12.0 million for
biological weapons proliferation prevention in Russia, $14.0
million for defense and military contacts, and $13.0 million
for other program support, including administrative and
management costs.
The committee recommends a total of $433.4 million for CTR
activities in fiscal year 2001, a decrease of $25.0 million
from the budget request. The committee recommends the request
of $57.4 million for fissile material storage in Russia; $9.3
million for fissile material processing and packaging in
Russia; $14.0 million for nuclear weapons transportation
security in Russia; $89.7 million for nuclear weapons storage
security in Russia; $12.0 million for biological weapons
proliferation prevention in Russia; and $13.0 million for other
program support. The committee recommends the following
increases to the budget request: $10.0 million for strategic
offensive arms elimination in Russia; and $5.0 million for
strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine; The committee
recommends the following decreases to the budget request: $35.0
million for chemical weapons destruction; and $5.0 million for
defense and military contacts.
Although the committee supports the overriding goal of the
CTR program to reduce the threat to the United States posed by
the former Soviet Union's residual weapons of mass destruction,
the committee remains concerned that the United States is
absorbing an increasing share of the costs of implementing CTR
projects as a result of the continued poor economic situation
in the states of the former Soviet Union. In Congressional
testimony on March 6, 2000, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Threat Reduction Policy Susan Koch stated that
Russia's economic conditions mean that its financial
contribution to threat reduction projects ``is less than
originally expected.'' The committee is concerned that U.S.
costs will continue to grow unless economic conditions in the
former Soviet Union improve markedly. As the General Accounting
Office (GAO) noted in recent testimony, ``Given the current
situation, the United States may have to fully fund not only
its implementation but also the operations and maintenance of
the threat reduction projects.''
In this regard, the committee is troubled by the Department
of Defense's willingness to absorb additional costs without
prior consultation with the Congress. In response to the
reporting requirement contained in section 1308 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65), the Secretary of Defense noted that the Department
``continuously urges the states receiving CTR assistance to
contribute their own funds to projects. . . . CTR assesses the
contribution arrangements of each project to avoid starting a
project under conditions whereby the recipient will not be able
to meet its share and restructuring has to occur.''
Unfortunately, the committee seesno evidence that this strategy
has achieved the desired results, and calls on the Department to
redouble its efforts in this regard.
Further, the committee is convinced that the focus of the
CTR program should remain on eliminating those weapons that
pose the most serious and direct threat to U.S. security--first
and foremost, strategic nuclear weapons and associated
infrastructure. The committee notes that the original focus of
the CTR program has expanded in scope since its inception,
raising questions about the Department's role in funding
certain projects. Section 1306 of Public Law 106-65 prohibits
the obligation or expenditure of more than 50 percent of fiscal
year 2000 CTR funds until the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress a report explaining why the Department is the
appropriate funding source for each CTR project for which
funding is requested, and identifies those projects that might
more appropriately be funded by other agencies. The committee
has not yet received this report, but believes that certain
projects--for example, those associated with the effort to
eliminate the production of weapons-grade plutonium at Russian
nuclear reactors--ought not to be funded by the Department.
Finally, the committee's overall support of the CTR program
is tempered with the realization that it is increasingly
difficult to know with certainty how effective this program is
in actually reducing the threat to the United States. This is
the case as the program transitions away from more concrete
projects involving the destruction of missile launchers and
associated hardware and toward support of less tangible
projects, such as funding collaborative research with former
Soviet scientists. The committee notes recent testimony by the
GAO, which points out that ``conclusively demonstrating that
most of these programs are having a positive impact has proven
to be very difficult. . . . Most of these programs . . . are
inherently a cost risk in that we may never be able to prove
that they have achieved their intended purpose.''
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia
The budget request contained $152.8 million for strategic
offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, a 16 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated amount of
$182.3 million. The committee recommends $162.8 million for
this activity, an increase of $10.0 million to the budget
request.
The committee continues to support the accelerated
reduction and elimination of Russian strategic nuclear arms.
However, the committee remains concerned that Russia has not
been complying with certain arms reduction obligations and that
CTR funding provided to assist Russia in meeting its
obligations is not being used for this purpose. In particular,
the committee notes that under the START I Treaty, Russia
committed to eliminating at least 22 SS-18 intercontinental
ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers annually. According to the
Department of Defense, Russia eliminated only 6 SS-18 launchers
in 1997 and none in 1998 or 1999. In a January 9, 2000 report
to Congress on the SS-18 ICBM elimination program, the
Department conceded that Russia's commitment to eliminate at
least 22 SS-18 ICBM launchers per year is ``legally binding.''
The committee remains concerned with Russia's failure to
carry out its obligations in this regard, and fails to
understand why Russia should be allowed to renege on its
legally binding obligation while it continues to invest scarce
resources in the development, production, and deployment of
more modern and capable ICBMs such as the SS-27 ``Topol-M.''
The committee expects the Department to continue to press
Russia to comply with its obligations under START I, regardless
of the level of CTR assistance provided.
Moreover, the committee notes that under the START II
Treaty, recently ratified by Russia, up to 90 SS-18 silos may
be converted for deployment of modern SS-27 ICBMs. The
committee supports the complete elimination of SS-18 missiles,
silos, and related infrastructure, and does not support the use
of CTR funds for activities that would facilitate silo
conversion. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to focus the Department's SS-18 elimination effort at
locations where missile silos are to be eliminated, not
converted, to ensure that CTR assistance is not used in support
of Russia's strategic modernization program.
Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine
The budget request contained $29.1 million for strategic
nuclear arms elimination projects in Ukraine, a 17 percent
reduction from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $35.0
million. This decrease continues a downward trend in funding
strategic nuclear elimination projects in Ukraine made possible
by the completion of certain activities and objectives. The
committee recommends $34.1 million for this activity, a $5.0
million increase to the budget request, for the purpose of
accelerating dismantlement activity.
The committee notes that last year Ukraine agreed to
transfer to Russia 11 heavy bombers, including Tu-95 Bear and
Tu-160 Blackjack bombers, in partial payment of energy debts.
More than 500 air-launched cruise missiles were also included
in the deal. These weapons and platforms were planned to be
eliminated in Ukraine. The committee regrets Ukraine's decision
to transfer these systems to Russia, and encourages the
Department to seek Russia's agreement to the elimination of
these systems.
Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia
The budget request contained $12.0 million for biological
weapons proliferation prevention activities in Russia, a 14
percent decrease from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level
of $14.0 million. This would support approximately one dozen
collaborative research projects with Russian scientists at
institutes previously involved in biological weapons work. In
addition, it would help to secure and safeguard stockpiles of
biological pathogens that exist at several institutes in
Russia. The committee recommends the budget request.
The committee continues to support efforts directed toward
reducing the risk of biological weapons proliferation, but
continues to have concerns regarding the overall approach taken
by the Department to addressing those risks.
First, unlike other collaborative ventures where joint
research projects are directed toward exclusively civilian
applications, it is difficult to demonstrate that collaborative
research projects in the area of biological defense have no
offensive military application. According to an April 2000 GAO
report, ``This type of research is difficult to distinguish
from offensive research because of the inherent dual-use nature
of biotechnology.''
Second, the committee is concerned that funding
collaborative research efforts with Russian scientists in the
area of biological defense may serve to perpetuate a knowledge
base and set of skills among Russian scientists that might make
them more attractive targets for recruitment by foreign states
seeking to develop their own biological weapons programs. Such
an outcome would be precisely the opposite of that intended. As
the GAO recently testified, ``supplementing the salaries of
these scientists is no guarantee that they will not in the
future sell their services to individuals or countries that
pose national security risks to the United States.'' Moreover,
the GAO's April 2000 report concludes that ``sustained U.S.
support of institutes, especially through research aimed at
advancing U.S. biodefense capabilities, may help to preserve
Russian scientists' knowledge and skills and otherwise help to
maintain these institutes' capacity to research and develop
biological weapons.''
Third, the committee remains troubled with the overall lack
of transparency with respect to Russia's biological weapons
programs. Existing and planned collaborative projects involve
scientists at Russian civilian institutes that were a part of
the former Soviet Union's massive biological weapons complex.
To date, the Russian Ministry of Defense has refused to engage
the United States in collaborative projects at sites or
institutes exclusively under its control. Moreover, there is
much about the former Soviet biological weapons program that
remains unknown, and Russia has not been forthcoming in
providing information that would reassure the United States
that it is not still engaged in offensive biological weapons
work. The United States cannot be assured that scientists
currently engaged in collaborative efforts at civilian
institutes will not be subsequently employed at facilities
controlled by the Russian Ministry of Defense. According to the
GAO report, ``None of these [proposed U.S. risk-mitigation]
measures, however, would prevent Russian project participants
or institutes from potentially using their skills or research
outputs to later work on offensive weapons activities at any of
the Russian military institutes that remain closed to the
United States.''
Fourth, the committee is concerned about the ability of the
United States to verify that assistance is being used for the
purposes intended and not being diverted to offensive weapons
work. This concern has increased in light of recent revelations
that civilian research assistance previously provided to Russia
by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
Agency for International Development was diverted to
Biopreparat, the main civilian support arm of Russia's
biological weapons complex.
Fifth, the committee notes that under the Expanded Threat
Reduction Initiative, the Department of Defense is only one of
several agencies involved in support of collaborative
biological research efforts with Russian scientists. This
places a premium on ensuring that current and planned efforts
are not in conflict and raises questions regarding the
Department of Defense's overall role in this effort. To this
end, section 1309 of Public Law 106-65 required the President
to submit to the Congress no later than March 31, 2000 a report
on the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative. This report has
not yet been submitted, and therefore, the committee does not
have all the information it needs to determine whether program
redundancies have been avoided. Consequently, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1311) that would prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of CTR funds for biological weapons
proliferation prevention activities until the required report
is submitted. The committee will continue to assess carefully
the Department's plans and programs with respect to this
activity.
Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia
The budget request contained a provision that would repeal
section 1305 of Public Law 106-65, which prohibits any funding
for the design, planning, or construction of a chemical weapons
destruction facility in Russia. The budget request also
contained $35.0 million to restart funding for the chemical
weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye, Russia. The
committee disapproves repeal of the existing statutory
prohibition and denies the requested funding for this activity.
The Department of Defense bases its request for repeal of
the section 1305 prohibition on three main arguments: 1) that
the risk of proliferation of the chemical munitions stockpiled
at Shchuch'ye remains a threat to the United States; 2) that
Russia has begun to take the actions necessary to move forward
with the project; and 3) that the international community is
willing to contribute additional resources to the task of
assisting Russia with the elimination of its chemical weapons.
The committee questions the Department's assessment and does
not believe that the situation warrants a reversal of the
Congress' decision last year to halt funding for this project.
To begin with, while the committee supports in principle
efforts to eliminate Russia's chemical weapons stockpile in
accordance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons
Convention, the committee takes issue with the Department's
characterization of the proliferation threat at Shchuch'ye. The
committee recognizes that there is a risk of proliferation of
chemical weapons in Russia. For this reason, the Congress last
year directed that $20.0 million in CTR assistance be used to
enhance security at Russia's existing chemical weapons sites.
Nevertheless, the committee is not aware of any evidence to
suggest that the risk of theft or diversion of the chemical
munitions stockpiled at Shchuch'ye is particularly acute. The
committee notes that no fiscal year 2001 CTR funds are proposed
to be spent on additional security upgrades at Shchuch'ye. This
alone calls into question the Department's assertion that the
risk of weapons theft or diversion at this site is serious.
Second, the Department has noted that Russia has begun
making infrastructure improvements to the local community--a
necessary prerequisite to U.S. construction of the chemical
weapons destruction facility. For example, new housing units
are being constructed and water and sewer lines are being
installed. However, the committee notes that, in part, the
Congress' prohibition on funding the Shchuch'ye facility last
year was not based on the lack of infrastructure improvements
but on concern over Russia's ability to absorb all of the
prospective costs associated with this effort. This concern has
not abated. Consequently, the committee does not believe that
recent developments warrant a repeal of last year's statutory
prohibition.
Third, the level of international contributions to Russia's
chemical weapons elimination effort in general--and to support
for the Shchuch'ye facility in particular--is minimal. Based on
the Department's projection of the life-cycle costs of the
Shchuch'ye facility ($1.6 billion) and the level of
international funding required to ensure that the facility
meets its chemical weapons destruction objectives ($721.5
million to $756.0 million), current assistance provided by the
international community amounts to roughly 0.001 percent of
what is required. To date, only Canada has provided assistance
to help Russia with the costs of local infrastructure
improvements at Shchuch'ye--and only in the amount of $70,000.
Great Britain is considering contributing approximately $5 million to
the effort, but has conditioned this assistance on a U.S. decision to
restart funding. Other countries had previously committed to assist in
the overall Russian chemical weapons elimination effort. However, the
level of assistance committed is also a small fraction of what is
required and little is directed toward the effort at Shchuch'ye.
The Department's latest estimate of the cost to the United
States of the Shchuch'ye project has grown significantly,
rising from roughly $750 million last year to almost $900
million. The committee expects that this cost estimate will
continue to rise and may soon exceed $1.0 billion. Moreover,
the committee remains concerned over the ability of Russia to
fund the costs of increasing the destruction rate of the
facility and to operate and maintain it over the period of time
required to eliminate the chemical weapons stockpile located
there. Without any assurances that Russia will absorb the costs
of running and maintaining the facility over the next decade,
the United States may spend more than a billion dollars to
build a facility that never accomplishes its objective, unless
the United States--despite Administration representations to
the Congress--reverses its position and agrees to pay these
costs. In fact, the committee notes that Russia continues to
significantly underfund its chemical weapons destruction
effort.
According to Russian officials, Russia has fallen
significantly behind schedule in destroying its chemical
weapons stockpiles and has missed the April 1, 2000 deadline
established by the Chemical Weapons Convention to eliminate 400
tons of its declared chemical weapons stockpile. As Lieutenant
General Valery Kapachin, the head of Russia's chemical weapons
elimination effort, declared on March 31, 2000, ``We haven't
destroyed anything as of today.'' With respect to the
demilitarization of existing chemical weapons production
plants, three Russian officials noted last year that ``the
Russian Government can provide only ten percent of the
necessary budget,'' and therefore ``financial assistance from
other countries is crucial.''
Finally, the committee notes that Shchuch'ye is only one of
seven declared sites where Russian chemical munitions are
stored and one of five sites where nerve agents are located.
The Department asserts that Russia's arsenal of nerve agents
poses the most serious security threat to the United States.
However, Russian law prohibits the transportation of agents
located at one stockpile site to another site for destruction.
Therefore, unless Russia changes its law, additional chemical
weapons destruction facilities will need to be built at the
other locations.
Last year, the committee directed the Department to use
unobligated prior year balances ``to provide for an orderly
close-out'' of activities at Shchuch'ye. To date, the
Department has ignored this direction. The committee reiterates
its call for an orderly close-out and urges the Department to
focus its efforts on projects with greater prospective benefits
for U.S. security.
Defense and Military Contacts
The budget request contained $14.0 million for defense and
military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union, a
600 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated
level of $2.0 million. The Department asserts that this
increase is necessary to support approximately 350 contacts
annually and that the program has exhausted much of the prior
year unobligated funds that allowed it to maintain a consistent
level of contacts in recent years with significantly less new
funding. The committee recommends $9.0 million for this
activity, a decrease of $5.0 million from the budget request.
The committee notes that, according to the latest financial
information provided by the Department, there remains
approximately $20.0 million in prior year unobligated balances
for these activities. Moreover, the committee recalls the long-
standing prohibition on conducting peacekeeping exercises or
related activities with Russia using CTR funds, and questions
whether all planned exercises are consistent with this
prohibition. This concern has been exacerbated by the
Department's explanation that the description of some planned
activities identified to the committee as peacekeeping-related
was ``in error.'' The committee expects the Department to
ensure that all defense and military contacts are consistent
with statutory guidance.
Elimination of Plutonium Production in Russia
The budget request contained $32.1 million for the
elimination of plutonium production in Russian nuclear
reactors, a slight decrease from the fiscal year 2000
appropriated level of $32.2 million. The committee recommends
the budget request, subject to the restriction below.
Since the start of this project, CTR funds have been
directed toward core conversion--a process whereby the
production of weapons-grade plutonium would be eliminated, but
the nuclear reactors would continue producing lower-grade fuel
to provide for the energy needs of the communities where they
are located. Recently, Russia informed the United States that
it would prefer to shut down the reactors entirely and to
construct fossil fuel plants to provide for local energy needs.
The Department of Defense previously rejected this option as
too costly. However, Russia now believes the cost of the fossil
fuel option would be less than core conversion. In order to
determine of validity of Russian estimates, U.S. and Russian
officials met in March 2000 to discuss the issue. In the
meantime, all work on the core conversion project has been
suspended.
Department of Defense officials have indicated that if the
fossil fuel option turns out to be the most cost-effective
approach, Russia will link its agreement to shut down the
nuclear reactors at Krasnoyarsk and Tomsk with U.S. assistance
for the construction of fossil fuel plants. Although the
committee supports the elimination of Russia's weapons-grade
plutonium production and the shutting down of these reactors,
the committee does not believe that CTR funds should be used to
build fossil fuel plants in Russia. Therefore, if this option
is chosen, the committee believes that any U.S. assistance
provided for this activity should be funded through other
means, external to the Department of Defense. Consequently, the
committee recommends a provision (sec. 1309) that would
prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any CTR funds for the
construction of fossil fuel plants in Russia.
Fissile Material Processing and Packaging
The budget request contained $9.3 million to assist Russia
in processing the fissile components of dismantled nuclear
warheads in preparation for long-term storage. This amount is
the same as the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level. The
committee recommends the budget request.
The committee notes that the required implementing
agreement that would allow the United States to assist Russia
in this endeavor has not yet been negotiated. In addition,
discussions regarding effective transparency measures have not
produced any agreement. Agreement on transparency measures is
essential to ensure that these fissile materials are the actual
materials removed from dismantled nuclear warheads. Therefore,
the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1307) that would
prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2001 CTR
funds for this purpose until 15 days after the Secretary of
Defense notifies the Congress that an acceptable transparency
agreement has been concluded.
Fissile Material Storage Facility
The budget request contained $57.4 million for continued
construction of a fissile material storage facility in Russia,
a reduction of 8 percent from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated
level of $62.1 million. The facility, located at Mayak, Russia,
would be used to house fissile materials from dismantled
nuclear weapons. The committee recommends the budget request.
The committee reiterates its previously expressed concern
over cost increases and schedule delays in connection with
construction of the Mayak facility. In particular, the
committee notes that the anticipated cost of this project has
increased by roughly 300 percent since 1996. Moreover, the
committee remains troubled by the fact that the United States
agreed last year to increase its share of the costs of this
facility by 50 percent without seeking prior Congressional
consultation or approval. Consequently, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1304) that would establish a
funding cap of $412.6 million on the level of U.S. assistance
provided for activities associated with the Mayak facility.
Moreover, the committee is aware of plans to construct a
second storage wing of the Mayak facility to provide additional
storage capacity for weapons-origin fissile materials. However,
no agreement with Russia on transparency measures has yet been
reached to assure that the fissile materials stored at Mayak
are in fact weapons-origin. The committee understands that
transparency negotiations are taking place in the context of
possible U.S. assistance to Russia in the processing and
packaging of fissile material removed from nuclear warheads.
Therefore, consistent with last year's Congressional action,
the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1304) that would
prohibit fiscal year 2001 CTR funds from being used for
construction of a second wing at Mayak and would restrict
funding for design and planning until 15 days after the
Secretary of Defense notifies the Congress that a transparency
agreement with Russia has been reached.
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia
The budget request contained $89.7 million for nuclear
weapons storage security in Russia, a 7 percent increase from
the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $84.0 million. The
committee recommends the budget request.
The committee continues to support the objective of
ensuring the safe and secure storage of nuclear weapons in
Russia. However, the committee believes it essential that the
United States be granted appropriate access to nuclear weapons
storage facilities to ensure that assistance provided is being
used as intended. Consequently, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1308) that would direct the Secretary of
Defense to seek an agreement with Russia that would grant the
United States appropriate access to nuclear weapons storage
sites where CTR assistance is being provided to confirm such
assistance is being used as intended.
Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security
The budget request contained $14.0 million for nuclear
weapons transportation security in Russia, an 8 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $15.2
million. The committee recommends the budget request. However,
the committee again urges the Department to seek an agreement
with Russia that does not commit the United States to paying
the costs of nuclear weapons transportation, costs previously
paid by Russia.
Other Assessments and Administrative Support
The budget request contained $13.0 million for other
program costs, including management and administrative costs,
project development, and audits and examinations, a 550 percent
increase from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $2.0
million. The Department asserts that it requires additional new
funding because of the drawdown in prior year unobligated
balances. The committee recommends the budget request.
The committee notes that this funding is used to support at
least 20 audits and examinations of CTR assistance annually,
which are intended to ensure that such assistance is being used
as intended. However, the committee is concerned that the
Department, which is required to report to the Congress
annually on the results of these audits and examinations, has
not provided this information in a timely manner and, in
several instances, provided information that is incomplete or
inaccurate.
The committee emphasizes that this reporting requirement is
essential to ensure that the Congress can exercise its
appropriate oversight role with respect to the CTR program.
According to a recent GAO study, the Department ``cannot fully
support its determination that assistance was used as
intended'' and places a ``relatively low priority'' on
providing audit and examination information to the Congress.
Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1310)
that would require the Comptroller General of the GAO to
conduct an audit and examination of the Department's ability to
make accurate assessments of whether CTR funds are being used
as intended.
The committee notes that section 1312 of Public Law 106-65
required the Department to include information on Russia's
arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads in its annual reports on
audits and examinations submitted to the Congress after fiscal
year 1999. The committee further notes that the Department's
1997 and 1998 audit and examination reports did not contain
this information, even though they were submitted to the
Congress in fiscal year 2000. The Department has indicated that
it interprets the section 1312 requirement to apply to only
those reports covering fiscal year 2000 and beyond, the first
of which would not be submitted to the Congress until January
2001. The committee notes that the language of section 1312 is
clear and does not support the Department's interpretation.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec.1306) that
would require the Department to provide this information not later than
October 1, 2000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
and Funds
This section would specify the kinds of programs to be
funded under this title and would make fiscal year 2001 CTR
funds available for obligation for three years.
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
This section would allocate fiscal year 2001 funding for
various CTR purposes and activities.
Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Elimination of
Conventional Weapons
This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for
conventional weapons elimination purposes.
Section 1304--Limitations on Use of Funds for Fissile Material Storage
Facility
This section would restrict the use of CTR funds for
activities associated with the construction of a fissile
material storage facility in Russia and would establish a
funding ceiling on the first wing of such a facility.
Section 1305--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of Multiyear
Plan
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
fiscal year 2001 CTR funds until the Secretary submits the
update to the multiyear plan required by section 1205 of Public
Law 103-337.
Section 1306--Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Arms
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on Russian nonstrategic nuclear arms not later
than October 1, 2000.
Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds to Support Warhead
Dismantlement Processing
This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2001 CTR
funds to support warhead dismantlement processing in Russia
until a transparency agreement with Russia is signed.
Section 1308--Agreement on Nuclear Weapons Storage Sites
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to seek
an agreement with Russia allowing for U.S. access to nuclear
weapons storage sites where CTR assistance is provided.
Section 1309--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Construction of Fossil
Fuel Energy Plants
This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for the
construction of fossil fuel plants in Russia.
Section 1310--Audits of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
This section would require the Comptroller General to
submit to Congress not later than March 31, 2001 a report on
procedures used by the Department of Defense to audit CTR
assistance.
Section 1311--Limitation on Use of Funds for Prevention of Biological
Weapons Proliferation in Russia
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of CTR funds for this purpose until the report required by
section 1309 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) is submitted to the
Congress.
TITLE XIV--COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES FROM
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK
OVERVIEW
The committee understands that a nuclear weapon detonated
at high-altitude would generate a powerful electromagnetic
pulse (EMP), similar to a very high energy radio wave, that can
potentially damage or destroy electronic systems over a wide
area of the Earth's surface. For example, a single nuclear
weapon detonated at an altitude of 500 kilometers could produce
an EMP that would blanket the entire continental United States,
potentially damaging or destroying military forces and civilian
communications, power, transportation and other infrastructure
on which modern society depends.
The committee is aware that EMP has been the focus of
significant government-funded research and testing for over 30
years. However, the committee is also aware that most of these
efforts were conducted during the Cold War and focused on
hardening strategic systems against a massive nuclear attack
from the Soviet Union. The committee understands that far fewer
resources have been dedicated to examining the potential
vulnerability of the U.S. civilian and industrial
infrastructure to an EMP attack. Moreover, since the Cold War,
U.S. military and civilian systems have become increasingly
dependent on advanced electronics that are potentially more
vulnerable than older electronics to EMP attack, a trend that
is likely to continue in the future.
In the committee's view, the potential vulnerability of the
United States to an EMP attack may be an issue of greater
moment, now that missiles and nuclear weapons are
proliferating. Some analysts have suggested that nations having
small numbers of nuclear missiles, such as China or North
Korea, may consider an EMP attack against U.S. forces
regionally, to degrade the U.S. technological advantage, or
against the United States' national electronic infrastructure,
as a way to get the most utility from their modest nuclear
capabilities. Analysts have also suggested that Russia's new
military doctrine, which gives unprecedented emphasis to
limited nuclear options, may assign increased importance to EMP
attacks as a way of limiting a nuclear conflict and averting a
massive nuclear exchange in the event of a confrontation with
the United States.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the establishment of
a commission to assess the threat to the United States from
electromagnetic pulse attacks.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1401--Establishment of Commission
This section describes how the ``Commission to Assess the
Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack''
is to be selected and organized.
Section 1402--Duties of Commission
This section describes the duties of the Commission, would
require the Commission to assess the EMP threat to the United
States, to make recommendations on how to better protect U.S.
military and civilian infrastructure from EMP, and would
require the Department of Defense and Federal Emergency
Management Agency to cooperate with the Commission.
Section 1403--Report
This section would require the Commission to submit a
report to Congress, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency within twelve months
of the Commission's first meeting.
Section 1404--Powers
This section would grant the Commission the power to hold
hearings and secure information directly from any Federal
department or agency.
Section 1405--Commission Procedures
This section describes the procedural rules for Commission
meetings, for establishing Commission panels, and for agents or
individual members acting on behalf of the Commission.
Section 1406--Personnel Members
This section would describe and regulate how Commission
members are to be paid and reimbursed for travel expenses; and
how Commission staff are to be appointed and paid, government
employees detailed to the Commission, and temporary services
acquired by the Commission.
Section 1407--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions
This section would make postal, printing, administrative
and support services available to the Commission.
Section 1408--Funding
This section would regulate how funds are to be provided to
the Commission.
Section 1409--Termination of the Commission
This section would provide for the termination of the
Commission within 60 days after the submission of its report
under Section 1403.
TITLE XV--PROVISIONS REGARDING VIEQUES ISLAND, PUERTO RICO
OVERVIEW
The committee remains concerned about the situation at the
Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility located on Vieques
Island, Puerto Rico. On April 19, 1999, during a routine
training event, live ordnance deployed by a Marine Corps F/A-18
accidentally struck an observation post within the Vieques
weapons range complex and killed David Sanes Rodriguez, a Navy
contract employee. From that day until May 4, 2000, protestors
occupying the live impact area on Vieques prevented the Navy
and Marine Corps from conducting training on the range.
Due to this situation, the Eisenhower and George Washington
battle groups and their associated amphibious ready groups were
unable to conduct pre-deployment training on Vieques. As a
result, valuable live naval gunfire, air-to-ground, and
combined arms training normally conducted prior to deployment
did not take place. This had a substantial negative impact on
the overall readiness of these deploying units as reported in
the Department of Defense Quarterly Readiness Report to
Congress for October to December 1999. The Navy stated in that
report that, ``Several deploying surface combatants will depart
Atlantic ports in February 2000 with reduced training readiness
due to expired gunfire qualifications resulting from the
continued non-availability of the Vieques training range.''
On January 31, 2000, the President and the Governor of
Puerto Rico concluded an agreement on the future of Vieques.
This agreement would allow the Navy to resume live fire on
Vieques with inert ammunition in return for $40.0 million in
economic assistance and the conveyance of Navy land on the
western end of the island to The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
According to the agreement, the future status of Navy training
on Vieques would be determined by a local referendum.
On May 4, 2000, after over a year of occupation, federal
law enforcement and Puerto Rican officials cleared the live
impact area and Eastern Maneuver Area of protestors. However,
even with the range now cleared, training is still restricted
to inert munitions. This restriction will not allow the for the
full range of live, joint and combined training that is
necessary prior to the deployment of carrier battle groups and
amphibious ready groups. The committee does not believe that
training conducted solely with inert ammunition adequately
provides for the readiness of our combat forces.
The committee also believes that the Department of the Navy
has not been a good steward of Vieques. The Navy has failed to
implement adequately many of the provisions of the Memorandum
of Understanding of 1983 concluded between the Navy and the
Government of Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the committee believes
that the Navy has consistently failed to take into account the
concerns of the local population regarding training on the
island. These facts, combined with the lack of economic
development that normally accrues to communities that host
military installations, has created an occasionally hostile
atmosphere toward the Navy presence on the island that has been
central to this situation.
In recognition of this problem and in order to encourage
the Navy to be a better neighbor, the committee recommends
training restrictions on the use of the range designed to
protect the citizens of Vieques. Live fire training would be
restricted to 90 days a year, with an allowance for an
additional 90 days of non-live fire training. The committee
would also require the Navy take steps to ensure the safety of
civilians on Vieques while also taking measures to reduce noise
in civilian areas of the island. The committee also recommends
the establishment of an advisory committee made up of military
officers and Puerto Rican citizens appointed by the Governor of
Puerto Rico and the Mayor of the Municipality of Vieques. The
advisory committee would provide a forum for the people of
Vieques to express their views to the Navy and to comment on
operations and the policies relating to military activities on
Vieques. All these measures are recommended by the committee in
recognition of the sacrifices made by the people of Vieques
toward the national security of the United States.
However, the committee ultimately believes that Vieques is
vital to the training of the Nation's naval forces and that it
is imperative that live-fire training resume on the island as
soon as possible. The committee is concerned about the
possibility that the ranges on Vieques may be unavailable in
the future and believes that battle groups deploying overseas
are not currently receiving the training necessary to meet the
challenges they may face during overseas deployments.
The committee rejects the idea that the future of military
training on Vieques be determined by referendum. Allowing local
communities to vote on the future of military training at local
bases would establish a precedent that could endanger access to
other critical military installations both in the United States
and overseas. Therefore, the committee does not believe that
the agreement signed by the President and the Governor of
Puerto Rico on January 31, 2000, adequately provides for U.S.
national security by ensuring the Navy's future access to this
vital training area. The committee believes that its
recommendations provide for the fair and equitable treatment of
the people of Vieques while preserving access to critical
training ranges.
Section 1501--Conditions on Disposal of Naval Ammunition Support
Detachment, Vieques Island
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
including any portion of the Naval Ammunition Support
Detachment on the western end of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico,
in a report of excess real property pursuant to the
requirements of section 2662 of title 10, United States Code,
until the President certifies to Congress that military
training operations have resumed using the full range of live
ordnance in use prior to April 19, 2000 and that this training
is conducted without interference. This section would also
require any portion of the land declared as excess by the Navy
be managed by any recipient as a conservation zone subject to
the irrevocable condition that the recipient of the property,
and any successor in interest, manage all lands in the same
manner. This section would further require the Secretary to
retain approximately 100 acres, containing the Relocatable
Over-the-Horizon Radar and the Mt. Pirata telecommunication
facility, at the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment.
Section 1502--Retention of Eastern Portion of Vieques Island
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
declaring any lands within the Eastern Manuever Area or the
Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility, including the live
impact area, on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, to be excess to
the needs of the armed forces or transferring or conveying any
such lands from the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy.
Section 1503--Limitations on Military Use of Vieques Island
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
notify the Government of Puerto Rico at least 15 days prior to
any major training exercise on Vieques. This section would also
limit the number of training days explosive ordnance can be
used to 90 days per calendar year, and allows for an additional
90 days of training with inert ordnance. This section would
further require the Secretary of the Navy to establish an
advisory committee to review and comment on operations and
policies regarding military training on Vieques. This section
would also require the Secretary of the Navy to ensure the
safety of the inhabitants of Vieques and to minimize noise
levels in civilian areas to the maximum extent possible.
Finally, the section would also provide for a waiver of the
advance warning requirements, the safety and noise restrictions
and training day limitations for reasons of national security.
Section 1504--Economic Assistance for Residents of Vieques Island
This section would authorize $40.0 million in economic
assistance for the citizens of Vieques for the projects
outlined in the President's Directive to the Secretary of
Defense and Director, Office of Management and Budget
(Community Assistance) and the President's Directive to the
Secretary of Defense and Director, Office of Management and
Budget (Referendum) dated January 31, 2000. However, this
section would expressly prohibit any of the funds to be used
for a referendum regarding the further use of the island for
military training purposes. In addition, the section would
withhold all funding until the Department of Defense can resume
live-fire training on the island using the full range of live
ordnance in use prior to April 19, 1999, without interference.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of Division B is to provide military
construction authorizations and related authority in support of
the military departments during fiscal year 2001. As approved
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in
the amount of $8,433,908,000 for construction in support of the
active forces, reserve components, defense agencies for fiscal
year 2001.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
The military construction authorization request for fiscal
year 2001 was introduced by request as division B of H.R. 4205
on April 6, 2000.
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $4,553,427,000 for fiscal year 2001 for
military construction, including $1,174,369,000 for activities
associated with base closure and realignment, and
$3,480,481,000 for family housing construction and support. The
committee recommends $4,874,647,000 for military construction,
including $1,174,369,000 for activities associated with base
closure and realignment, and $3,559,261,000 for family housing
construction and support for fiscal year 2001.
The committee restates its deepening concern about the
condition of the Nation's military installations and facilities
and continues to be troubled by the continuing and persistent
underinvestment by the Administration in military facilities
and infrastructure. The budget request for the authorization of
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the military
construction and military family housing programs of the
Department of Defense, if enacted, would represent a four
percent reduction from current spending levels and a 25 percent
reduction from the funding levels authorized by Congress for
fiscal year 1996.
To address the serious shortfalls in the Administration's
budget request, the committee recommends an increase in new
budget authority for these programs of $400,000,000.
In an effort to improve the quality of life for military
personnel and their families, the committee reiterates its
support for the authorities provided in subchapter IV, chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code. The Military Housing
Privatization Initiative remains a central component of the
ultimate resolution of the military housing crisis. The
committee recommends an extension of current authorities to
support this program for an additional five years to 2006. The
committee recognizes that implementation of this program has
occurred more slowly than initially anticipated and expects the
secretaries of the military departments to accelerate
implementation of this program during the extended pilot
program period.
A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in
Division B for fiscal year 2001 follows:
A tabular summary of the military construction projects
included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for the BRAC IV account follows:
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $897,938,000 for Army military
construction and $1,140,381,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of
$672,391,000 for military construction and $1,152,249,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2001.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Condition of Barracks to Support Basic Training
The committee notes favorably the commitment of the
Secretary of the Army and the uniformed leadership of the Army
to a resolution of the problem of substandard barracks
conditions for permanent party personnel by fiscal year 2008.
The committee continues to support strongly improvement in the
quality of life for unaccompanied military personnel. The
committee recognizes that the program to conclude the
modernization of permanent party barracks in a timely manner,
combined with the requirement to modernize the Army's strategic
mobility infrastructure by fiscal year 2004, limits the ability
of the Army to program adequately for other military
construction priorities given the funds currently allocated to
the military construction account in the current future years
defense program (FYDP). The committee reiterates its view that
additional funds for military construction are required to meet
significant infrastructure shortfalls affecting military
readiness and the retention of military personnel. The
committee is concerned that current Army programming will not
permit adequate attention to the problem of substandard
barracks conditions for recruits. The committee notes that only
one barracks construction project, based on newly adopted Army
standards for recruit barracks, is funded within the current
FYDP. The committee does not believe such a funding profile is
sufficient. The committee is especially concerned that training
installations, which may expect increases in the number of new
recruits and trainees, lack sufficient barracks spaces to
accommodate that training load and that existing barracks
spaces are generally substandard. The committee urges the
Secretary of the Army to review current plans and programs to
improve the condition of barracks to support basic training and
directs the Secretary to report on his findings, including any
recommendations, coincident with the submission of the fiscal
year 2002 budget request.
Improvements to Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements to military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Army execute the following projects:
$4,700,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (28 units) at
Fort Irwin, California, and $4,150,000 for Whole Neighborhood
Revitalization (56 units) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
Planning and Design
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete
planning and design activities for the following projects:
$1,600,000 for a power train modification facility at Anniston
Army Depot, Alabama, and $4,320,000 for a basic trainee
barracks complex at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
Unspecified Minor Construction
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army
execute the following project: $500,000 for multimedia learning
centers at the United States Military Academy, New York.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2001. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2001.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2001.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
2001. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 1999 Project
This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(division B of Public Law 105-261) to provide for an increase
in the amount authorized for the construction of a railhead
facility at Fort Hood, Texas.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $753,422,000 for Navy military
construction and $1,245,460,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of
$887,810,000 for military construction and $1,299,863,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2001.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities, Blount
Island, Jacksonville, Florida
The committee reiterates its support for the acquisition of
prepositioned equipment facilities managed under lease by the
Department of the Navy at Blount Island Command, Jacksonville,
Florida. The committee recalls that the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79) provided authority
for the expenditure of $5,000,000 as the first phase of this
major land acquisition. The committee recommends an additional
$3,320,000 for this purpose for fiscal year 2001 and expects
those funds to be combined to acquire three parcels of real
property based on current real estate valuations. The committee
notes that the budget estimates for fiscal year 2002 provided
by the Secretary of the Navy indicate that sufficient funds are
programmed to acquire the remainder of the real property
required by the Marine Corps. The committee urges the Secretary
of the Navy to make every effort to complete this acquisition
in a timely fashion.
Improvements to Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements to military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Navy execute the following project: $8,600,000
for Whole House Revitalization (98 units) at Marine Corps Base,
Camp Pendleton, California.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2001. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
2001.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2001.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 2001. This
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy
may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year 1997
Project at Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia
This section would modify the authorized use of funds
authorized for appropriation for fiscal year 1997 for a
military construction project at Marine Corps Command
Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. This section would
permit the use of previously authorized funds to carry out a
military construction project involving infrastructure
development at that installation.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $530,969,000 for Air Force
military construction and $1,049,754,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of
$703,873,000 for military construction and $1,062,263,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2001.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Rome Research Site, New York
The committee notes the authority provided by the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-
79) to permit the Secretary of the Air Force to utilize
appropriated funds and contributions by the State of New York
to support the improvement of facilities at the Rome Research
Site, New York. The committee was concerned that such authority
could be utilized in a manner that would provide a comparative
advantage over similar installations for which the authority
did not apply in the event additional base closures and
realignments are authorized by Congress. The committee notes
that the terms of the memorandum of understanding entered into
by Empire State Development, Griffiss Local Development
Corporation, and Air Force Materiel Command does not constitute
a commitment by the Air Force to preclude the Rome Research
Site from being considered, recommended, or selected for
closure under any current or future base closure law.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2001. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2001.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2001.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 2001.
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $784,753,000 for defense
agencies military construction and $44,886,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $815,504,000 for military construction and
$44,886,000 for family housing.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Forward Operating Locations in Support of Counter-Drug and Drug
Interdiction Activities
The budget request contained $76,823,000 for military
construction at Manta, Ecuador, and Aruba and Curacao in the
Netherlands Antilles for the establishment of forward operating
locations to support the counter-drug and drug interdiction
activities of the Department of Defense. The committee supports
the establishment of forward operating locations at those
sites. However, the committee notes that funds to support
military construction for this purpose was included in H.R.
3908, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, as passed
by the House on March 30, 2000. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of that amount in Military Construction,
Defense-Wide.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section contains the list of authorized defense
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2001. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year
2001. This section also would provide an overall limit on the
amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction
projects.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $190,000,000 for the NATO
infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for
fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends $177,500,000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations of $177,500,000
as the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment
program.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $221,976,000 for fiscal year
2001 for guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends
authorization for fiscal year 2001 of $434,560,000 to be
distributed as follows:
Army National Guard..................................... $ 129,139,000
Air National Guard...................................... 110,885,000
Army Reserve............................................ 104,854,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 47,934,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... 41,748,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 443,200,000
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Planning and Design, Army National Guard
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete
planning and design activities for the following project:
$1,281,000 for a combined support and maintenance shop at Fort
Lewis, Washington.
Planning and Design, Army Reserve
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete
planning and design activities for the following project:
$809,000 for an advanced training barracks complex at Fort Dix,
New Jersey.
Unspecified Minor Construction, Army Reserve
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army
execute the following project: $700,000 for parking and site
improvements at Fort Douglas, Utah.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for
fiscal year 2001. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be
Specified by Law
This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities,
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will
expire on October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
before October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1998
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1998 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 2000, or the date of the enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later.
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1997
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1997 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 2000, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later.
Section 2704--Effective Date
This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1,
1999, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Military Housing Privatization Initiative
The committee reiterates its strong support for the
development of military housing under the authority provided by
subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code. The
committee acknowledges that the privatization of military
family housing may, in certain instances, have an effect on
local educational agencies and educational infrastructure
requirements. The committee notes that section 2871 of title
10, United States Code, provides general authority for the
development of facilities to support elementary or secondary
education as ancillary supporting facilities to privatized
military housing. The committee urges the secretaries of the
military departments to assess more adequately the impact of
the development of military housing under this authority on
local education agencies and infrastructure. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, to assess the impact of military housing
developed under the authority of subchapter IV, chapter 169 of
title 10, United States Code, at Fort Carson, Colorado. The
committee further directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a
report on his findings, and any recommendations, concurrent
with the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2002.
Water Quality Issues Affecting Military Installations in the Area of
Kaiserslautern, Germany
The committee is aware of limited environmental
contamination at five locations on, or near, military
installations supporting the missions of the Army and the Air
Force in the area of Kaiserslautern, Germany. The committee
urges the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air
Force to continue to work cooperatively with local German
authorities to resolve matters relating to environmental
contamination affecting the water supply supporting military
installations and civilians in the area of Kaiserlautern,
Germany.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Revision of Limitations on Space by Pay Grade
This section would amend section 2826 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the secretary concerned to ensure that
the room patterns and floor areas of military family housing
units constructed, acquired, or improved by the secretary shall
be generally comparable to those available in the locality of
the military installation on which such military family housing
units are located.
Section 2802--Leasing of Military Family Housing, United States
Southern Command, Miami, Florida
This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United
States Code, to modify the authorized terms of leasing for
military family housing to support the United States Southern
Command in Miami, Florida.
Section 2803--Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of
Military Housing
This section would amend section 2885 of title 10, United
States Code, to extend the authorities contained in subchapter
169 of title 10, United States Code, for an additional five-
year period to 2006.
Section 2804--Expansion of Definition of Armory to Include Readiness
Centers
This section would amend section 18232 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that the term ``readiness center''
shall have the same meaning as the term ``armory''.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Increase in Threshold for Notice and Wait Requirements
for Real Property Transactions
This section would amend section 2662 of title 10, United
States Code, to increase the threshold for notice and wait
requirements for real property transactions from $200,000 to
$500,000.
Section 2812--Enhancement of Authority of Military Departments to Lease
Non-Excess Property
This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United
States, to modify the permissible forms of consideration
received by the secretary concerned for the lease of non-excess
real property under the control of the secretary.
Section 2813--Conveyance Authority Regarding Utility Systems of
Military Departments
This section would amend section 2688 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the secretary concerned to comply with
the competition requirements of section 2304 of title 10,
United States Code, in the conveyance of utility system
infrastructure.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally
Part I--Army Conveyances
Section 2831--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois
This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange
of jurisdiction on, a parcel of real property with improvements
consisting of approximately 23 acres at Rock Island Arsenal,
Illinois, between the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary
of Veterans' Affairs. The parcel is to be incorporated into the
Rock Island National Cemetery.
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Galesburg, Illinois
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 4.65 acres in
Galesburg, Illinois, to Knox County, Illinois. The property is
to be used for the development of municipal and other public
purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
would be borne by the County.
Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Winona, Minnesota
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements to Winona State University Foundation. The
property is to be used for educational purposes. The cost of
any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the
Foundation.
Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Fort Polk, Louisiana
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 100 acres at Fort
Polk, Louisiana, to the State of Louisiana. The property is to
be used for the establishment of a State-run veterans'
cemetery. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
would be borne by the Commission.
Section 2835--Land Conveyance, Fort Pickett, Virginia
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of not more than 700 acres, at Fort
Pickett, Virginia, to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The
property is to be used for the development and operation of a
public safety training facility. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the
Commonwealth.
Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately two acres and
containing a parking lot inadvertently constructed on the
parcel, at Fort Dix, New Jersey, to Pemberton Township, New
Jersey.
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Nike Site 43, Elrama, Pennsylvania
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 160 acres in Elmara,
Pennsylvania, to the Board of Supervisors of Union Township,
Pennsylvania. The parcel is to be used for municipal and other
public purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance would be borne by the Township.
Section 2838--Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately 200 acres at Fort Hood, Texas, to the City of
Copperas Cove, Texas. As consideration for the conveyance, the
City would convey to one or more parcels of real property,
consisting of approximately 300 acres, to the Secretary. The
cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyances would be
borne by the City.
Section 2839--Land Conveyance, Charles Melvin Price Support Center,
Illinois
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements consisting
of approximately 752 acres to the Tri-City Regional Port
District of Granite City, Illinois. As consideration for the
conveyance, the Secretary shall determine if the Port District
satisfies the criteria to qualify for a public benefit
conveyance. If the public interest is served, the secretary may
accept an amount less than fair market value for a lease of the
property. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
would be borne by the Port District.
Section 2840--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Local Training Center,
Chattanooga, Tennessee
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 15 acres at the Army
Reserve Local Training Center, Chattanooga, Tennessee, to the
Medal of Honor Museum, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee. The parcel
is to be used as a museum and for other educational purposes.
The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be
borne by the Corporation.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
Section 2851--Modification of Authority for Oxnard Harbor District,
Port Hueneme, California, to Use Certain Navy Property
This section would amend section 2843 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B
of Public Law 103-337) to clarify the restrictions on the use
of real property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the
Navy by the Oxnard Harbor District, Port Hueneme, California.
This section would also clarify the forms of consideration
which the District shall pay to the Secretary for the use of
the property.
Section 2852--Modification of Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air
Station, El Toro, California
This section would amend section 2811 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991
(Public Law 101-189) to modify the permissible uses of funds
received by the Secretary of the Navy.
Section 2853--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Marine Corps Air Station,
Miramar, California
This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange
of jurisdiction on, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 250 acres at Marine
Corps Air Station, Miramar, California, between the Secretary
of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior. The parcel is to
be incorporated into the Vernal Pool Unit of the San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge.
Section 2854--Lease of Property, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar,
California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
lease, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 250 acres and known
as the Hickman Field, to the City of San Diego, California, for
a period not to exceed five years. The lease would be subject
to the condition that the City maintain the property at no cost
to the United States, make the property available to the
existing tenant at no cost, and use the property solely for
recreational purposes. The cost of any survey necessary for the
lease would be borne by the City.
Section 2855--Lease of Property, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
lease real property improvements to be designed and constructed
by the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation at the National Museum
of Naval Aviation at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, to
the Foundation for a period up to 50 years, with an option to
renew for an additional 50 years. The improvements are to be
used for the development and operation of a National Flight
Academy. As a condition for the lease, the Foundation would
make the property available at no cost to the Secretary under
certain specified conditions. This section would also authorize
the Secretary to provide assistance to the Foundation in the
form services on a reimbursable basis. The cost of any survey
necessary for the lease would be borne by the Secretary.
Section 2856--Land Exchange, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,
California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately 45 acres at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San
Diego, California, to the San Diego Unified Port District. As
consideration for the conveyance, the Port District would
convey to the Secretary a parcel of real property contiguous to
the installation and would construct suitable replacement
facilities and necessary supporting structures as determined by
the Secretary.
Section 2857--Land Exchange, Naval Air Reserve Center, Columbus, Ohio
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately 24 acres comprising the Naval Air Reserve
Center at Rickenbacker International Airport, Ohio, to the
Rickenbacker Port Authority of Columbus, Ohio. As consideration
for the conveyance, the Authority would convey to the Secretary
a parcel of real property consisting of approximately 15 acres.
This section would require the Secretary to utilize the
property conveyed by the Authority as the site for a joint
reserve center for units associated with the Naval Air Reserve
Center at the Airport and the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
Center currently located in Columbus, Ohio. The cost of any
survey necessary for the exchange would be borne by the
Authority.
Section 2858--Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Center, Tampa, Florida
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately 2.18 acres and comprising the Naval Reserve
Center, Tampa, Florida, to the Tampa Port Authority. As
consideration for the conveyance the Port Authority is required
to provide a replacement facility and bear all reasonable costs
incurred during the relocation. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Port
Authority.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
Section 2861--Land Conveyance, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property
with improvements, consisting of approximately 100 acres at
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to Greene County, Ohio.
The property is to be used for recreational purposes. The cost
of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by
the County.
Section 2862--Land Conveyance, Point Arena Air Force Station,
California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property
with improvements, consisting of approximately 82 acres at the
Point Arena Air Force Station, California, to Menocino County,
California. The property is to be used for municipal and other
public purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance would be borne by the County.
Section 2863--Land Conveyance, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey on terms the Secretary considers appropriate, any or
all portions of four parcels of real property with
improvements, totaling approximately 111 acres at Los Angeles
Air Force Base, California. As consideration for the
conveyance, the recipient shall provide for the design and
construction, acceptable to the Secretary, of one or more
facilities to consolidate the mission and support functions at
the installation. Any such facilities would comply with
specified seismic and safety standards. This section would also
authorize the Secretary to enter into a lease for the facility
for a period not to exceed 10 years in the event the fair
market value of a facility provided as consideration for the
conveyance exceeds the fair market value of the conveyed
property. Rental payments under the lease would be established
at the rate necessary for the lessor to recover, by the end of
the lease term, the difference between the fair market value of
the facility and the fair market value of the conveyed
property. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
would be borne by the recipient.
Part IV--Other Conveyances
Section 2871--Conveyance of Army and Air Force Exchange Service
Property, Farmers Branch, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
permit the Army and Air Force Exchange Service to sell a parcel
of real property with improvements in Farmers Branch, Texas,
for an amount equal to the fair market value of the parcel. The
section would also require the payment by the purchaser to be
handled in the manner provided in section 485(c) of title 40,
United States Code. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
sale would be borne by the purchaser.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 2881--Retention of Easement Authority to Leased Parkland,
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California
This section would amend section 2851 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B
of Public Law 105-261) to exempt certain lands located within
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, and leased by
the State of California for use as a restricted access highway
from the requirements of section 303 of title 49 and section
138 of title 23, United States Code. This section would also
require the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Agency to be
responsible for the implementations of any mitigation measures
required by the Secretary of Transportation.
Section 2882--Extension of Demonstration Project for Purchase of Fire,
Security, Police, Public Works, and Utility Services from Local
Government Agencies
This section would amend section 816 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-
337), as amended, to extend the period under which a
demonstration project is authorized for the purchase of fire,
security, police, public works, and utility services from local
government at specified locations in Monterey, California.
Section 2883--Establishment of World War II Memorial on Guam
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the American Battle Monuments Commission, to
establish a suitable memorial on federal property near the Fena
Caves in Guam to honor those civilians killed during the
occupation of Guam during World War II and to commemorate the
liberation of Guam by the armed forces of the United States in
1944.
Section 2884--Naming of the Army Missile Testing Range at Kwajalein
Atoll as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Defense Test Site at Kwajalein
Atoll
This section would designate the missile testing range at
Kwajalein Atoll as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Defense Test
Site at Kwajalein Atoll.
Section 2885--Designation of Building at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, in
Honor of Andrew T. McNamara
This section would designate a building at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia, as the Andrew T. McNamara Building.
Section 2886--Redesignation of the Balboa Naval Hospital, San Diego,
California, in Honor of Bob Wilson, a Former Member of the House of
Representatives
This section would redesignate the Balboa Naval Hospital,
San Diego, California, as the Bob Wilson Naval Hospital.
Section 2887--Sense of Congress Regarding Importance of Expansion of
National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
prompt expansion of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin,
California, is vital to the national security interests of the
United States.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $13,150.6 million for the
national security activities of the Department of Energy. This
includes $6,177.6 million for the programs of the National
Nuclear Security Administration. The budget request also
contained $6,832.9 million for defense environmental and other
defense activities. The committee recommends $12,871.4 million,
a decrease of $279.2 million. The following table summarizes
the request and the committee recommendations:
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $6,832.9 million for
environmental and other defense activities.
The committee recommends $6,601.9, a decrease of $231.0
million.
Items of Special Interest
Acceleration of the 94-1 program and restoration of infrastructure at
the Savannah River Site
The budget request contained $452.9 million for Site
Project Completion at the Savannah River Site.
In May 1994, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
submitted Recommendation 94-1 to the Secretary of Energy
dealing with the need to stabilize and to store safely large
amounts of fissionable and other nuclear materials at the
Savannah River Site. The committee is aware of accomplishments
in remediating this material. However, the committee notes
severe problems continue to exist. The committee believes that
an acceleration of the 94-1 Program is necessary and recommends
an increase of $16.0 million to execute the following projects:
(1) development of process flowsheets, safety documentation,
and pre-operational activities to support planned stabilization
campaigns; (2) acceleration of the rack construction and
testing for the Amercium/Curium stabilization project; and (3)
continued operation of the HB-Line Phase I to process plutonium
residues.
The committee notes that much of the Savannah River Site
infrastructure is nearing 50 years of age and believes that
Savannah River environmental management programs require
restorative improvements to support current operations, retain
core competencies, and to maintain nuclear materials in a safe
and secure manner. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $24.0 million for Savannah River Site
infrastructure improvements, including $16.0 million for design
and procurement of site ventilation, electrical, and safety
alarm systems and for repair or replacement of leaking roofs,
and $8.0 million of the increase for replacement of the
computer control system for the Defense Waste Processing
Facility.
The committee recommends $492.9 million for Site Project
Completion at the Savannah River Site, an increase of $40.0
million.
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative
The budget request contained $17.0 million for the Energy
Employees Compensation Initiative to fund a program, separately
transmitted to Congress in November 1999, that would establish
three programs to compensate current and former Department of
Energy (DOE) and contractor employees who are ill due to:
(1) Workplace exposure to beryllium at various DOE
nuclear weapons production facilities;
(2) workplace exposure to plutonium and other highly
radioactive materials at the Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous
diffusion facility; or
(3) workplace exposure to radiation and hazardous
materials, at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, site.
While the committee acknowledges that some DOE or
contractor employees may have developed illnesses as a result
of being unknowingly exposed to dangerous materials or not
being adequately protected from such exposure, it questions
whether the funds to compensate these individuals should come
from the national defense budget function and why a
compensation program should not be set up as an entitlement
rather than financed from discretionary appropriations.
The committee notes that the legislative proposal, the
Energy Employees' Compensation Act was introduced and referred
to committees in both the House of Representatives (H.R. 3418)
and the Senate (S. 1954) in November 1999 but was not referred
to the House Committee on Armed Services, since authorization
for the program would have to be approved by another committee.
The committee further notes that no other committee has held
hearings or taken any other action on the legislative proposal.
Additionally, the committee notes that the $17.0 million
requested is just the beginning of the Department's plans to
compensate workers who were exposed to radiation while helping
to build the nation's nuclear arsenal. The Department has
recently publicized a plan that would cost an estimated $400.0
million over the first five years for this purpose.
The committee believes that the compensation program under
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) provides a
useful precedent in addressing compensation of the DOE and
contractor employees at issue here. RECA is an entitlement
program designed to compensate uranium miners and individuals
who suffered radiation exposure because they lived down-wind
from nuclear test sites. The program is administered by the
Department of Justice, and entitlement funding is carried in
Department of Justice budgetary accounts.
The committee believes that the Department of Energy could
use RECA as a model in establishing a program to compensate
those made ill by working at DOE facilities. Such an
entitlement program would have the advantage of guaranteeing
appropriate compensation once eligibility criteria are defined.
Moreover, the program would not be subject to the funding
vagaries of the annual authorization process. Once such a
program is established and eligibility criteria are defined,
the committee will be in a position to make a more informed
judgment about how much funding is appropriate and necessary.
Even though the committee has questions about this
compensation initiative, it nevertheless recommends a $2.0
million increase for Environment, Safety, and Health to
structure such a program. The committee notes that DOE
officials have recently indicated that almost all of the $17.0
million requested would be used for administrative start-up
expenses rather than to pay claims. The committee does not
support this amount for administrative purposes and believes
that the $2.0 million should be adequate for these costs until
the committee's concerns can be properly addressed.
Hanford tank waste remediation system privatization, phase I
The budget request contained $450.0 million for the Hanford
Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Privatization, Phase IB-2.
The current contractor for TWRS Phase IB-1 recently
submitted a proposal to the Department of Energy (DOE) to
complete the design, as well as to construct and operate, a
waste treatment facility for the radioactive waste at the
Hanford site. The expected cost for this work was $15.2
billion, which the Secretary of Energy denounced as
unacceptably high. The Secretary stated that the $15.2 billion
cost was proposed just 18 months after the contractor informed
the Department that it could design, construct, and operate a
waste treatment facility for $6.9 billion and that he would not
approve the proposal.
While the Secretary of Energy has rejected the proposal,
the committee acknowledges that this waste must be extracted
from the tanks, solidified, and safely stored because the risk
of leakage is unacceptable. However, the committee believes
that given the uncertain path forward for this program, the
budget request is overstated. Therefore, the committee
recommends $194.0 million, a decrease of $256.0 million for the
TWRS.
The committee believes that the $194.0 million in new
budget authority should be combined with funds appropriated for
TWRS in prior years that remain unobligated. The committee
understands that $118.0 million in prior appropriations are
currently reserved for termination costs which would be
incurred if the Phase IB-1 contract is terminated by the
Department. Since DOE intends to allow this contract to be
completed in August 2000, these funds will not be needed for
termination expenses. The committee also understands that $58.0
million of prior year carryover balances exist in the TWRS
program and that DOE intended to apply this amount to Phase IB-
2 TWRS design work in fiscal year 2001. Therefore, the $176.0
million of prior appropriations could be combined with the
$194.0 million of new budget authority to provide DOE with
$370.0 million for the planned continuation of the design work
for the waste treatment facility, for procurement of long lead
items, and to provide for possible rework required should a
different contractor be selected to continue this project.
In order to make the funds held for termination liability
available for other purposes, the committee has included a
provision (section 3131) that would prohibit the use of
appropriated funds to establish a reserve for contract
termination costs for the Tank Waste Remediation System. Should
the need for termination liability arise, the committee stands
ready to assist the Department.
Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility
The budget request contained $15.0 million for design of
the mixed oxide fuel (MOX) fabrication facility.
The Department of Energy (DOE) awarded a $65.0 million
contract for the design of the MOX fabrication facility in
March 1999. The committee understands that since the award of
the contract, the contractor has had to make unforeseen changes
to the facility's planned configuration and will have to do
additional environmental work to satisfy the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
The committee notes that recent DOE security assessments
recommend the installation of earth and concrete barriers
around the MOX facility to deny or delay access by intruders
and that these requirements were not conveyed to the contractor
until after the contract award. Similarly, the DOE Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the MOX facility was
not available until after the design contract award, and the
NRC indicated that significant differences between the MOX
facility advance preliminary design and the EIS will require
the contractor to do additional environmental impact analyses.
Due to these unforeseen changes and a subsequent
requirement for additional contingency funds, the committee
recommends $23.0 million for the MOX fabrication facility, an
increase of $8.0 million.
Nonproliferation and national security
The budget request contained $38.0 million for a new start
design of facilities in Russia for the storage of spent fuel
from civil nuclear reactors. The committee understands that
this program is intended to encourage Russia to cease
separating plutonium from spent reactor fuel due to concerns
about the potential for increased risk of proliferation of
nuclear weapons material. The committee is concerned that the
completed facility should have adequate security to protect the
stored fissile material. Therefore, the committee directs that,
if this facility is constructed, the Department of Energy (DOE)
extend protection to the facility through the Department's
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
program.
The committee is also concerned about the expenditure of
funds on nonproliferation efforts in Russia with little DOE on-
site monitoring. The committee understands that the Department
currently monitors the various programs in Russia through
occasional visits by Department employees and believes that
this level of monitoring is insufficient. Therefore, the
committee directs that at each Russian site where a significant
DOE nonproliferation program is in operation, the Department
locate a DOE employee or contractor on a continual basis to
monitor the operations of the nonproliferation program and that
U.S. funds are efficiently applied.
Worker and community transition
The budget request contained $24.5 million for Worker and
Community Transition, of which $6.0 million was designated for
assistance at an identified site. The remainder was either
designated for administration of the program ($3.0 million) or
intended to be held as a contingency for site closings and
workforce transitions that were unforeseen at the time the
budget was prepared ($15.5 million).
The committee understands that a portion of the Savannah
River Site is in Barnwell County, South Carolina, an area of
the state experiencing chronic underemployment resulting from
workforce reductions at Savannah River during the last decade.
In the 1970s, a facility to reprocess spent nuclear fuel
was constructed on the Allied General Nuclear Site (AGNS) in
Barnwell County immediately adjacent to the Savannah River
Site. However, before reprocessing began, federal policy
towardreprocessing was reversed and the facility was closed. In an
effort to mitigate the employment problems surrounding the Savannah
River Site, the Tri-County Alliance, consisting of the counties of
Barnwell, Allendale, and Bamberg, has agreed to acquire the AGNS site
for redevelopment as a special-use industrial park. The committee
understands that a major investment is required at the site to develop
the necessary infrastructure for industries that would locate there to
serve the Savannah River Site and the surrounding community.
Therefore, the committee recommends $24.5 million for
Worker and Community Transition and directs that $5.0 million
of the undesignated amount be expended on infrastructure
development at the AGNS site.
National Nuclear Security Administration
The budget request contained $6,177.6 million for the
National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends $6,269.4 million, an increase of
$91.8 million.
Items of Special Interest
Budget Structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
The committee notes that section 3251of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) required that, beginning with fiscal year 2001, the budget
request for the NNSA be set forth in individual, dedicated
program elements. The committee notes that the budget request
does not include such program elements and, therefore, does not
comply with the requirements of current law.
The committee observes that supporting material
accompanying the budget request for Defense Programs describes
in detail a budget structure organized around directed
stockpile work, campaigns, readiness in technical base and
facilities (RTBF), and construction. Within each of these
areas, funds are identified to support discrete project
activities or sets of activities. In view of the lack of
cooperation from the Department of Energy (DOE) in formulating
the budget request in compliance with the requirements of
Public Law 106-65, the committee believes that it must take the
step of establishing program elements. The committee believes
that the discrete activities identified in the budget request
provide the basis for such program elements. The designation of
program elements and funding levels recommended by the
committee are depicted in table entries.
However, the committee does not believe that the Defense
Programs activities identified in directed stockpile work,
campaigns, RTBF, and construction are appropriately aligned or
portrayed. As a first step toward realigning these activities,
the committee recommends that related activities and
construction projects be consolidated under their associated
campaign program elements. The realignment of funds by the
committee within the individual program elements is described
elsewhere in this report.
The committee urges the Administrator of NNSA to prepare,
and the Department to submit, future budget requests that: (1)
align major construction projects and facilities with their
related campaigns, in order to enhance Congressional and
managerial oversight; (2) fund infrastructure and operational
readiness by facility, in order to provide a clear picture of
the business and overhead costs at NNSA facilities; and (3)
organize directed stockpile work by warhead, in order to
provide a clear picture of the status of each warhead in the
inventory and the work required to sustain it.
The committee also notes that section 3252 of Public Law
106-65 required that, beginning with fiscal year 2001, funding
requested for the NNSA be available for obligation for a
limited number of years. The committee notes that the DOE has
again requested that its funds be available until expended. The
committee recommends a provision (section 3128) that would
define the length of time for which funding for the NNSA would
be available.
Campaigns
The budget request contained $1,049.9 million for
campaigns.
The committee recommends $2057.0 million for campaigns,
including an increase of $131.0 million, a transfer of $621.8
million from readiness in technical base and facilities, and a
transfer of $254.3 million from construction.
Advanced Design and Production Technology (ADAPT)
The budget request contained $75.7 million for the ADAPT
campaign, which will develop advanced manufacturing
capabilities critical to improving efficiency at the nuclear
weapons plants, but included no funds for the American Textile
(AMTEX) partnership.
The committee understands that the budget request does not
adequately support process development, integrated product and
process and design, agile manufacturing, and enterprise
integration at the Kansas City plant. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million to support these
activities.
AMTEX enhances capabilities relevant to both the stockpile
stewardship program and the textile industry by developing
technologies that integrate product and process design in a
concurrent manufacturing enterprise. Consistent with its
previous support for AMTEX activities, the committee recommends
an increase of $3.0 million in the ADAPT campaign to continue
this effort.
In total, the committee recommends $81.7 million for ADAPT,
an increase of $6.0 million.
Advanced radiography
The budget request contained $43.0 million for the advanced
radiography campaign and $35.2 million for construction of the
dual-axis radiographic hydrotest facility (DARHT). The
committee believes that congressional and managerial oversight
of these activities would be enhanced if funds for these
activities were consolidated in the advanced radiography
campaign. Therefore, the committee directs this realignment.
The budget request contained a total of $78.2 million in these
activities. The committee recommends the requested amount.
The committee understands that hydrotest capabilities are
unlikely to provide test results in a timely manner to certify
new and remanufactured primaries (the fission device that
triggers the fusion reaction in nuclear weapons), that
development of advanced radiography technologies has been
delayed, and that the advanced radiography and primary
certification campaigns are being rebaselined. Therefore, the
committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by January 15, 2001, on
hydrotest and radiography requirements, the process by which
they are defined, the technologies available to meet the
requirements, the timelines on which these technologies are
available, and the funding associated with the technologies and
schedules.
The committee also encourages the Administrator to examine
the relationship between the advanced radiography and campaign
and the primary certification campaign to determine if
management insight would be enhanced by an appropriate
realignment of these two efforts.
Defense computing and modeling
The budget request contained $477.1 million for the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) component of
advanced simulation and computing in readiness in technical
base and facilities (RTBF). The budget request also contained
the following amounts for ASCI and defense computing: $249.1
million for the defense application and modeling campaign,
which provides funds to develop and run nuclear weapons
computer codes on ASCI computers; $2.3 million for construction
of the distributed information systems laboratory at Sandia
National Laboratories; $5.0 million for construction of the
terascale simulation facility at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory; $56.0 million for construction of the strategic
computing complex at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and $6.7
million for the joint computational engineering laboratory at
Sandia National Laboratories. Each of these facilities under
construction will be used to house ASCI computers. The
committee believes that funding all of these activities in the
defense application and modeling campaign will provide better
understanding of ASCI costs and enhance congressional oversight
and managerial control. Therefore, the committee directs this
realignment. As realigned, the budget request contained $796.2
million for defense computing and modeling.
ASCI is an effort to develop by 2004 a computer capable of
100 trillion operations a second. This computer will be
powerful enough to conduct three-dimensional simulations of
nuclear explosions to be used as a means of assuring the
safety, reliability, and effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons
in the absence of actual testing. The committee understands the
significance of ASCI for science-based stockpile stewardship
and is encouraged by the technical progress demonstrated to
date.
Of the $477.1 million requested for ASCI in RTBF, $55.7
million was included for collaborations with universities and
industry. The committee notes that this represents a 38 percent
increase over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The
committee understands the value of these collaborations in
attracting university talent to the benefit of the stewardship
program, but believes that the increase is excessive. The
committee recommends $40.7 million for university
collaborations, a reduction of $15.0 million.
The budget request also contained $112.8 million for the
visual interactive environment for weapon simulation (VIEWS)
project, a 68 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000
appropriated level. The committee continues to be concerned
about the pace of growth in certain parts of the ASCI project
and does not believe that the Department of Energy has
adequately justified an increase of this magnitude. Therefore,
the committee recommends $107.8 million for VIEWS, a reduction
of $5.0 million.
In total, the committee recommends $776.2 million for the
defense computing and modeling campaign, a reduction of $20.0
million.
Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) ignition and high yield
margins
The budget request contained $120.8 million for the ICF
ignition and high yield margins campaign; $100.8 million in
readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF) for the
National Ignition Facility (NIF), a key component of the ICF
ignition campaign; $43.9 million for other RTBF operations
related to pulse power and lasers; and $74.1 million for NIF
construction. The total request in these various activities is
$339.6 million. The committee believes that funding all of
these activities in the ICF ignition campaign will provide a
better understanding of ICF costs and enhance both
congressional oversight and managerial control. Therefore, the
committee directs this realignment.
The committee also encourages the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to examine the
relationship of the ICF high yield campaign and the secondary
readiness campaign and to determine if management insight would
be enhanced by an appropriate realignment of these two efforts.
The committee recognizes that NIF is a key element of the
effort to sustain the nuclear stockpile in the absence of
underground nuclear testing and supports completion of the NIF
project. NIF will use a large array of lasers used to achieve a
fusion reaction by focusing their energy on a small hydrogen
target. Experiments with NIF, both those that achieve a fusion
reaction and subcritical experiments, will contribute important
experimental data to several stockpile stewardship campaigns
and will allow scientists to confirm computer models on the
behavior of nuclear weapons explosions.
However, the committee understands that the NIF project is
now $750.0 million to $1.0 billion over budget and behind
schedule by four years. The cost growth and delay stem from the
greater-than-expected complexity of assembling and integrating
192 high energy lasers in a clean, confined space.
The committee is concerned that the NIF project management
failed to indicate in a clear and timely way the magnitude of
the technical difficulties as they emerged. The committee is
also concerned that project oversight by Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, independent review teams, the University
of California as the contractor with oversight
responsibilities, and the Department of Energy failed to detect
or report the technical difficulties. For example, the
committee understands that independent reviews examined the
program's performance related to schedule and budget, without
examining the underlying engineering plans. The General
Accounting Office and the Department now both confirm that, in
fact, there was no detailed engineering plan for the assembly
and integration of the laser components. These failures also
highlight the lack ofappropriate technical expertise within the
Department to allow for effective oversight and the urgent need to
address this problem.
The committee, therefore, directs that no more than 35
percent of the funds authorized for appropriation for the NIF
program may be obligated until the Administrator certifies to
the congressional defense committees that program management
flaws resident in the laboratory and contractor have been
corrected and that NNSA oversight and management of the program
is performed by NNSA personnel with appropriate technical and
management expertise.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy has
recently recommended a realignment of $95.0 million from
various campaigns to NIF. In light of the significance of the
NIF project to stockpile stewardship, the committee recommends
an increase of $95.0 million to the ICF and High Yield Margins
campaign for NIF construction.
However, the committee believes that the sources for the
additional NIF funds identified in the Secretary's
recommendation will detract from activities that are key to
sustaining the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of the
nuclear stockpile and that lower priority funding should be
identified for realignment. In the absence of credible sources
for additional NIF funding, the committee believes that the
designation of specific sources to offset the increase to NIF
construction is premature. The committee will coordinate
closely with the Administrator of the NNSA to assure that that
appropriate offsets for this increase are identified in a
timely manner.
The ICF campaign budget request also included $32.1 million
for the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser
Energetics (LLE). The committee believes that LLE's Omega laser
continues to make important contributions to the ICF program,
particularly in light of the delays and technical challenges
facing the NIF project, and directs that the Department fund
this facility at the requested level.
Laser development
The budget request contained $120.8 million for the
inertial confinement fusion (ICF) ignition and high yield
margins campaign but included no funds for laser research and
development jointly funded by the Department of Defense (DOD)
and the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA).
The committee notes that the high energy laser master plan
mandated by section 251 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) recommended that
DOD and the Department of Energy conclude a memorandum of
agreement to conduct a joint high energy laser research program
beneficial to both the NNSA and DOD. The committee recommends a
provision, described elsewhere in this report, that would
require the NNSA and DOD to conclude such an agreement wherein
the costs of peer-reviewed research conducted under the
auspices of the agreement would be evenly shared between them.
The committee believes that joint research on high energy
lasers can help to meet critical national security challenges,
including the need for effective ballistic missile defenses,
while simultaneously benefitting stockpile stewardship
activities of the NNSA.
Therefore, the recommends an increase of $10.0 million to
the ICF ignition and high yield margins campaign budget request
for joint DOD-NNSA research on high energy lasers.
Pit manufacturing readiness
The budget request contained $108.0 for the pit
manufacturing readiness campaign.
The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) lacks a robust capability for the
replacement of plutonium pits. The Report of the Panel to
Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United
States Nuclear Stockpile expressed concern over ``the high
degree of uncertainly in the current understanding of the
useful life of plutonium pits.'' The Panel, citing estimates
that construction of new plutonium facilities could take 7 to
15 years, urged that conceptual design activities of a pit
production facility begin on an expedited basis.
The committee also notes that the pit production facility
at Los Alamos National Laboratory is designed for a maximum
capacity of about 50 pits per year. The committee recognizes
that the rate at which pits may need replacement remains
unclear, due to the uncertainties related to pit lifetime and
the ultimate size of the stockpile, but the committee
understands that this rate is unlikely to allow for replacing
stockpile pits in a timely manner. Accordingly, the committee
believes conceptual design of a pit production facility should
begin promptly as a hedge against the risk that the need for
expanded pit production will develop more rapidly than is now
anticipated. Given the uncertain demand for pit production, the
committee also believes that a scalable design is desirable so
that the design can be readily adapted as demand is more
precisely defined.
Therefore, the committee recommends $123.0 million for pit
manufacturing readiness, an increase of $15.0 million for the
initiation of conceptual design work on a pit manufacturing
facility. Noting that a science-oriented laboratory is not the
best institution for pit production and that industry is better
suited to this task, the committee urges the Administrator of
the NNSA to maximize industry involvement in the design and
manufacture of plutonium pits.
The committee understands that funds appropriated in fiscal
year 1999 for pit production readiness were diverted for other
uses, have not yet been restored, and may result in a delay of
up to two years in the production of the first certifiable pit.
The committee strongly urges the Department to initiate a
reprogramming to restore these funds as soon as possible.
Tritium readiness
The budget request contained $77.0 million in the tritium
readiness campaign, including $58.0 million for commercial
light water reactor (CLWR) tritium production and $19.0 million
for accelerator production of tritium (APT). It also contained
$75.0 million for construction of the tritium extraction
facility. The committee believes that congressional and
managerial oversight of these activities would be enhanced if
funding for these activities were consolidated in the tritium
readiness campaign. Therefore, the committee directs this
realignment. As realigned, the budget request contained a total
of $152.0 million in these activities.
The committee notes that section 3134 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) required the Department of Energy tocomplete preliminary
design and engineering development of APT and codified the December
1998 tritium production decision by the Secretary of Energy that
designated CLWR technology as the primary tritium production technology
but committed to completion of the APT preliminary design. The budget
request, however, suspends APT backup design activities and, in so
doing, both violates current law and contradicts the Secretary's
tritium production decision.
The committee believes that the uncertainty inherent in the
CLWR license amendment process requires the precaution of
continuing APT design work at a reasonable level. Therefore,
the committee recommends $177.0 million in the tritium
readiness campaign, an increase of $25.0 million.
Construction projects
The budget request contained $414.2 million for
construction and infrastructure improvements. The committee
recommends the alignment of most construction projects with
their associated campaigns. The committee recommends that the
following projects be realigned: the distributed information
systems laboratory (01-D-101, $2.3 million), the terascale
simulation facility (00-D-103, $5.0 million), the strategic
computing complex (00-D-105, $56.0 million), and the joint
computational engineering laboratory (00-D-107, $6.7 million)
to the defense applications and modeling campaign; the tritium
extraction facility (98-D-125, $75.0 million) to the tritium
readiness campaign; the dual-axis radiographic hydrotest
facility (97-D-102, $35.2 million) to the advanced radiography
campaign; and the national ignition facility (96-D-111, $74.1
million) to the inertial confinement fusion ignition and high
yield margins campaign.
The budget request contained $159.8 million for the
remaining construction projects. The committee recommends the
budget request. The committee believes that many of these
projects should also migrate to an associated campaign and
encourages the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration to do so in subsequent budget requests.
Defense programs requirements process
The committee understands that the nuclear weapons
requirements process involves project officer groups
responsible for the health of each weapons type, the nuclear
weapons requirements working group, the nuclear weapons council
standing and safety committee, and the nuclear weapons council.
The membership of each of these groups includes officers and
personnel of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of
Energy (DOE) and each deals with system or technical
requirements at various levels of detail. The committee notes
that DOE's 1999 Stockpile Stewardship Program 30-Day Review
concluded that coordination between DOD and DOE is inadequate
to generate and prioritize nuclear weapons requirements. The
review further contended that the Office of Defense Programs
(DP) lacks a formal process for assessing these requirements,
developing plans to address them, and prioritizing workloads.
The committee believes that concerns expressed by the review
are legitimate.
The committee also notes that DP has pursued a science-
based stockpile stewardship program to sustain the viability of
U.S. nuclear weapons in the absence of underground nuclear
testing. DP has been developing and acquiring a range of
science-based tools for this purpose, and the committee
understands that DP must also define and prioritize
requirements for these tools. The committee notes that DP has a
long history of poor program management, in part attributable
to poor program definition and frequently changing program
baselines. The committee believes that this history gives rise
to legitimate concern that DP also lacks a sufficiently formal
and rigorous approach to defining the technical requirements of
these science-based tools and prioritizing competing technology
programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to submit to the
congressional defense committees by February 15, 2000, a report
on the steps being taken to improve requirements processes
related to nuclear weapons. The report should include an
assessment of coordination between the NNSA and DOD together
with actions required to more fully coordinate this process, as
well as an assessment of DP's internal processes for developing
plans to address nuclear weapons requirements and prioritizing
resulting workloads together with any actions required to
improve DP's processes. The report should further assess DP's
procedures for defining the technical requirements for science-
based stewardship tools and prioritizing competing technology
programs and steps required to improve these procedures.
Department of Energy Reorganization Issues
The committee notes that title 32 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65)
required the establishment of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) by March 1, 2000, and the committee is
pleased that the NNSA has been formally established by the
Department of Energy (DOE). The committee is also pleased that
a nominee for Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration has been forwarded to the Senate by the
President.
However, the committee remains concerned about the slow
progress of the Department toward full compliance with the law.
The Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy
Reorganization expressed, in its report to the committee on
February 11, 2000, a number of concerns with the Department's
January 2000 implementation plan. These concerns included the
Department's placement of DOE officials to serve concurrently
in key NNSA positions, the continuation of confused lines of
authority within the NNSA, the failure to provide any
information on the use of authorities to restructure the NNSA
workforce, an overemphasis in the plan on continued DOE control
over the NNSA, and the retention of current DOE budget and
planning practices.
The committee remains particularly concerned about the
placement of DOE officials to serve concurrently in key NNSA
positions, a practice known as ``dual-hatting.'' The Secretary
of Energy testified to the committee that he would not change
this practice, even after an NNSA Administrator is confirmed by
the Senate.
The committee notes that the Department, in its written
legal opinion in support of this practice, maintains that
Congress was explicit and detailed throughout title 32 of
Public Law 106-65, but did not explicitly prohibit dual-
hatting.
The committee asserts that dual-hatting DOE officials to
any positions in NNSA violates a clearly implied prohibition in
current law and notes that the entire purpose, structure and
legislative history of title 32 of Public Law 106-65 reflect an
intent to insulate NNSA and its contractors from the rest of
DOE. This intent is apparent in several sections, including:
section 3213(a), which established that the Secretary or Deputy
Secretary may provide direction to NNSA only through the NNSA
Administrator; section 3212(d), which stated that the
Administrator may make policies specific to NNSA, subject only
to the disapproval of the Secretary; section 3212(c), which
established the Administrator as the chief procurement
executive for NNSA; sections 3212(b) and 3218, that provide the
NNSA Administrator with staff to perform all of the normal
administrative functions in running an agency, including
budget, personnel, legislative affairs, public affairs,
procurement, counterintelligence; section 3217 which
established the position of General Counsel within the
Administration; and sections 3213(a) and 3213(b), which
specifically prohibited DOE officers and employees, other than
the Secretary acting through the Administrator, from exercising
authority, direction, or control over NNSA employees or NNSA
contractor employees. The committee believes that these
provisions, in combination, provide compelling evidence of
congressional intent to insulate the NNSA from direct control
by DOE staff and to prohibit dual-hatting within the NNSA.
The legislative history also clearly indicates that
Congress, in mandating the establishment of the NNSA, was
attempting to rectify the longstanding bureaucratic confusion
and overlap that has plagued DOE. The committee remains
concerned that the DOE implementation plan fails to correct
these confused lines of authority. The Department as currently
organized requires three NNSA facilities to report through non-
NNSA operations offices. The committee believes that this
arrangement is not compliant with current law. The
implementation plan also makes no changes in the role or
function of operations offices. The committee believes that the
roles and functions of operations offices should be revised to
clarify headquarters authorities and streamline NNSA
management. Finally, the committee notes that dual-hatting
senior DOE officials to NNSA positions, particularly those that
involve overseeing NNSA field operations, will undermine the
authority of the Administrator, perpetuate confused lines of
authority, and ultimately will make it more difficult to
rectify problems in the weapons complex.
The committee also observes that section 3241 of Public Law
106-65 authorized the Administrator of the NNSA to establish up
to 300 excepted service positions to fill science, engineering,
and technical positions with qualified personnel. The committee
notes the Department's lack of appropriate technical expertise
to manage complex projects and activities. Thus, the committee
was disappointed that a proposal to use this authority was not
forwarded as part of the Secretary's January 2000
implementation plan. The committee continues to believe that
this authority will be an important tool for the Administrator
to reshape the NNSA workforce.
Accordingly, the committee expects the Secretary and the
Administrator of the NNSA to reform lines of authority and the
roles and functions of operations offices within the NNSA, and
to develop management structures that incorporate the use of
personnel hired through excepted service authority.
Directed stockpile work
The budget request contained $836.6 million for directed
stockpile work.
The committee recommends $856.6 million, an increase of
$20.0 million.
Stockpile evaluation
The budget request contained $151.7 million for stockpile
evaluation.
The committee notes that the budget request does not
adequately support radiographic inspection of nuclear weapons
components and assemblies, vacuum chamber inspection
activities, testing in the accelerated aging unit, and other
stockpile evaluation activities at the Pantex plant. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to support
these activities.
The committee also notes that the budget request does not
adequately support quality evaluation and certification
activities and joint test assemblies at the Y-12 plant. The
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for stockpile
evaluation at the Y-12 plant.
In total, the committee recommends $162.7 million, an
increase of $11.0 million for stockpile evaluation.
Stockpile maintenance
The budget request contained $258.0 million for stockpile
maintenance.
The committee notes that the budget request does not
adequately support life extension and repairs for the B-61
warhead and other directed stockpile work at the Kansas City
plant. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
support these activities.
The committee also notes that the budget request does not
adequately support life extension activities for the B-61 and
W-76 warheads and other directed stockpile work at the Y-12.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to support
these activities.
In total, the committee recommends $267.0 million, an
increase of $9.0 million for stockpile maintenance.
Program direction for defense programs
The budget request contained $224.1 million for program
direction for the Office of Defense Programs (DP).
The committee notes federal staffing levels planned for
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) operations
offices is the same as the authorized staffing level for fiscal
year 2000. The committee also notes that the size of the
operations offices and the confusing lines of authority within
the Office of Defense Programs were criticized in many
independent reports over two decades, most recently by the June
1999 report by the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board. The committee believes that the Administrator of the
NNSA should clarify lines of authority and adjust the personnel
levels at the operations offices accordingly. Consequently, the
committee recommends areduction of $5.0 million, which
corresponds to a five percent reduction in federal staffing at the NNSA
operations offices.
The committee also notes that of the funds requested for
program direction, $2.2 million would support automatic data
processing equipment (ADPE) upgrades at the Oak Ridge and
Oakland Operations Offices. These operations offices are part
of the Office of Science of the Department of Energy. Title 32
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(Public Law 106-65) included Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and the Y-12 plant as part of the NNSA and required
that these facilities report to the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs. The committee believes that an organizational
structure that entails DP facilities reporting through the
Office of Science is both inefficient and inappropriate and
does not believe that DP should fund computer upgrades for the
Office of Science. Therefore the committee recommends an
additional reduction of $2.2 million to program direction.
The committee recommends $216.9 million, a decrease of $7.2
million for program direction for the Office of Defense
Programs.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The budget request contained $1,953.6 million in RTBF. The
committee recommends $1,366.8 million, including an increase of
$35.0 million and a transfer of $621.8 million to campaigns.
The committee understands that the facility costs budgeted
in RTBF were not calculated consistently. While the nuclear
weapons production plants included all salaries under RTBF, the
nuclear weapons laboratories allocated salaries to various
ongoing program activities. The committee believes that this
inconsistency hinders congressional understanding of overhead
costs and project costs and expects the Administrator of the
NNSA to develop the NNSA budget for submission by DOE with RTBF
funding calculated consistently among all the facilities.
Further, the committee does not believe that projects and
activities that present complex scientific and engineering
challenges should be funded in RTBF. Consequently, as described
elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends funding for
the advanced simulation and computing component of RTBF through
the defense computing and modeling campaign, and that inertial
confinement fusion (ICF) and national ignition facility
operations be funded through the ICF and high yield margins
campaign.
Operations of facilities
The budget request contained $1,313.4 million for
operations of facilities, including $29.1 million for
infrastructure costs at the Pantex plant, $39.8 million for
infrastructure costs at the Kansas City plant, and $67.3
million for infrastructure costs at the Y-12 plant.
The committee understands that the budget request for
infrastructure costs at the nuclear weapons plants represent
reductions of 25 percent, 6 percent, and 27 percent at the Y-
12, Kansas City, and Pantex plants respectively. The committee
is concerned that such reductions are inconsistent with the
problems highlighted by the Stockpile Stewardship Program 30-
Day Review conducted by the Department of Energy. This review
cited studies showing that the historical rate of reinvestment
in nuclear weapons facilities is far below industry standards
and that the aging infrastructure was not designed to meet
current mission requirements or safety standards.
The committee believes that the budget request places
insufficient priority on restoring and modernizing
infrastructure at the plants, and recommends $49.1 million for
infrastructure improvements at Pantex plant, an increase of
$20.0 million; $56.8 million for infrastructure improvements
and capital equipment at the Kansas City plant, an increase of
$17.0 million; and $82.3 million for infrastructure
improvements at the Y-12 plant, an increase of $15.0 million.
As described elsewhere in this report, the committee
recommends realigning $100.8 million from operations of
facilities for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and $43.9
million in other RTBF funds to the inertial confinement fusion
ignition and high yield margins campaign.
Overall, the committee recommends $1,220.7 million for
operations of facilities, a reduction of $92.7 million.
Special projects
The budget request contained $17.0 million for educational
activities, including funding for mathematics and science
education for local schools near the national weapons
laboratories, the Los Alamos County School District, and the
Northern New Mexico Educational Enrichment Foundation.
The committee understands the importance of primary and
secondary education in mathematics and science but believes
that funding of these activities in the Defense Programs
account provides no direct benefit to the core national
security mission of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Consequently, the committee recommends no funds
for these activities, a reduction of $17.0 million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear
Security Administration for fiscal year 2001.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy
environmental restoration and waste management activities for
fiscal year 2001.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize funds for other defense
activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2001.
Section 3104--Defense Facilities Closure Projects
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy
defense facilities closure projects for fiscal year 2001.
Section 3105--Defense Environmental Management Privatization
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy
defense environmental management privatization activities for
fiscal year 2001.
Section 3106--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy
defense nuclear waste disposal activities for fiscal year 2001.
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
Section 3121--Reprogramming
This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in
excess of 110 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for
the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the
congressional defense committees and a period of 60 days has
elapsed after the date on which the notification is received.
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects
This section would limit the initiation of general plant
projects if the current estimated cost for any project exceeds
$5.0 million and would require the Secretary of Energy to
notify the congressional defense committees in the event the
estimated cost of any project exceeds $5.0 million and the
reasons for the cost variation.
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects
This section would permit the initiation and continuation
of any construction project only if the estimated cost for the
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the
amount authorized for the project; or (2) the most recent total
estimated cost presented to Congress as justification for such
project. To exceed this limit, the Secretary of Energy must
report in detail the reason therefore to the congressional
defense committees and the report must be before the committees
for 30 legislative days. This section would also specify that
the 125 percent limitation would not apply to projects
estimated to cost under $5.0 million.
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
transfer funds to other agencies of the government for
performance of work for which the funds were authorized and
appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such
funds with the funds made available to the agency to which they
are transferred.
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
certify that a conceptual design for a construction project has
been completed prior to requesting funding for that project,
except in the case of emergencies.
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction
Activities
This section would permit the Secretary of Energy to
perform planning and design for construction activities
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national
security program construction project whenever the Secretary
determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to
protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of
national defense, or to protect property.
Section 3127--Availability of Funds
This section would require that funds authorized for the
various activities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration and environmental management activities of the
Department of Energy would be available for obligation for
three years, and that funding authorized for program direction
would be available for obligation for one year.
Section 3128--Authority Relating to Transfer of Defense Environmental
Management Funds
This section would provide the manager of each field office
of the Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer
defense environmental management funds from a program or
project under the jurisdiction of the office to another such
program or project.
Section 3131--Funding for Termination Costs for Tank Waste Remediation
System Environmental Project, Richland, Washington
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from
using appropriated funds to establish a reserve for the payment
of termination costs of contracts relating to the tank waste
remediation system at Richland, Washington and identifies
alternatives to pay for these costs should the need arise to do
so.
Section 3132--Enhanced Cooperation Between National Nuclear Security
Administration and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
This section would establish the basis for expanded
cooperation between the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The committee continues to believe that ballistic missile
defense remains one of the highest defense priorities and that
the national laboratories represent a repository of expertise
of potentially great value in meeting technology challenges in
the ballistic missile defense program.
Section 3133--Required Contents of Future-Years Nuclear Security
Program to be Submitted with Fiscal Year 2002 Budget and Limitation on
Obligation of Certain Funds Pending Submission of That Program
This section would make certain findings that the budget
submission for fiscal year 2001 to Congress does not comply
with requirements imposed by sections 3251 and 3253 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106-65); would establish requirements for the content of
the future-years nuclear security program to be submitted
annually by the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) pursuant to section 3253 of Public Law
106-65; and would prohibit the obligation of more than 50
percent of funds authorized for appropriation for program
direction within NNSA until 30 days after the Administrator
provides Congress with the required future-years nuclear
security program.
Section 3134--Limitation on Obligation of Certain Funds
This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized to
be appropriated for the National Nuclear Security
Administration for infrastructure upgrades or maintenance in
the readiness of technical base and facilities or construction
accounts to be used for any other purpose.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
The budget request contained $18.5 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB).
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation
for DNFSB was $17.0 million and does not believe there is ample
justification to warrant increase of $1.5 million. The Board
cites an increased number of Department of Energy facilities to
oversee as the basis for their increased budget request.
However, most of these new facilities will be in the design,
not construction, phase during fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $17.0 million for
the DNFSB, a decrease of $1.5 million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize $17.0 million for the
operation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3301--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds
This section would authorize $70.5 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal
year 2001. The provision would also permit the use of
additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45
days after a notification to Congress.
Section 3302--Use of Excess Titanium Sponge in the National Defense
Stockpile to Manufacture Department of Defense Equipment
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer excess titanium sponge contained in the National
Defense Stockpile for use in manufacturing equipment to be used
by the military services. This transfer authority would be on a
non-reimbursable basis, except that the military service
requesting the titanium would be responsible for all
transportation and related costs. This new transfer authority
would not conflict with transfer authorities for titanium
contained in section 3305 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Merchant Marine Academy
The budget request contained $37.2 million for the U.S.
Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The committee is deeply
troubled that the health and safety hazards to the cadets and
staff still continue due to the appalling condition of physical
plant and infrastructure at the institution. Although the
budget request includes an increase of $3.0 million for repairs
and capital improvements, this amount is insufficient to begin
to buy down the backlog of deferred maintenance and facilities
replacement. The committee is concerned that a facilities
master plan that would establish and prioritize necessary
repairs and improvements is not complete. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $13.9 million to complete
development of a facilities master plan and to address the most
critical health and safety related repair and capital
replacement projects at the USMMA.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001
This section would authorize a total of $148.3 million for
fiscal year 2001, an increase of $61.9 million above the budget
request, for the Maritime Administration. Of the funds
authorized, $94.2 million would be for operations and training
programs, $50.0 million would be for the costs as defined in
section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of loan
guarantees authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), and $4.2
million would be for administrative expenses related to
providing these loan guarantees.
Section 3402--Extension of Period For Disposal of Obsolete Vessels From
the National Reserve Fleet
This section would amend the National Maritime Heritage Act
of 1994 to extend by five years, until September 20, 2006, the
date by which obsolete vessels from the National Defense
Reserve Fleet vessels must be disposed and require the use if
overseas scrapping facilities to meet this requirement. In
addition, this section would require the Secretary of
Transportation to submit to the Congress a plan describing how
the required disposals will be completed by the revised date.
Section 3403--Authority to Convey National Defense Reserve Fleet
Vessel, GLACIER
This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to convey, at no cost to the government, a
surplus National Defense Reserve Fleet vessel, to the Glacier
Society for use as a museum.
DEPARTMENTAL DATA
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, March 6, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the
enclosed draft legislation, ``To authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal
year 2001, and for other purposes.''
This legislative proposal is part of the Department of
Defense Legislative Program for the Second Session of the 106th
Congress and is necessary to carry out the President's budget
plans for fiscal year 2001. The Office of Management and Budget
advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this
proposal to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in
accord with the program of the President.
The bill proposes several important initiatives needed for
the efficient operation of the Department of Defense. It would
contribute to the smooth management of the Department by
providing many improvements to the authorities under which we
operate.
The Department currently is developing several other
legislative proposals, including an initiative regarding the
basic allowance for housing for military personnel. We will
submit these initiatives in the near future.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Dworkin,
Acting General Counsel.
Enclosures.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is proposed legislation to
authorize military construction and related activities of the
Department of Defense. It is styled as Division B--Military
Construction Authorizations, with the expectation that it will
be included in the National Defense authorizations for fiscal
year 2001 with that designation. Enactment of this legislation
is necessary to carry out the President's budget plan with
regard to military housing and property for fiscal year 2001.
This legislation is part of the Legislative Program of the
Department of Defense for the Second Session of the 106th
Congress.
If enacted, this legislation would make several
improvements to the efficiency of managing military
construction, base housing, and the use of defense lands. These
improvements would include extension of authority to conduct
our military privatization initiatives, the revision of the
limitations on space in housing by grade, the enhancement of
the Military Leasing Act, and several other general and
specific authorities in the management of our military housing
and property.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this proposal to the
Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the
program of the President.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Dworkin,
Acting General Counsel.
Enclosures.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 10, 2000 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 4205, as amended, by a vote of 56
to 1.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: According to information provided by
Armed Services staff, H.R. 4205, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, includes several
provisions that affect laws within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Those provisions are found at
section 738 of the bill (improvements regarding VA-DOD sharing
agreements for health services), section 535 of the bill
(addition of certain information to markers on graves at the
National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific), and section 2831 of
the bill (transfer of jurisdiction of land to VA at Rock Island
Arsenal). In order to expedite consideration of H.R. 4205, the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs waives the right it would have
under the House Rules to seek a referral of the measure to the
Committee for consideration of these provisions.
Thank you for your courtesy in bringing these matters to
the VA Committee's attention.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning the jurisdictional
interest of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
in H.R. 4205, the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act.
H.R. 4205 as reported by the Committee on Armed Services
contains many provisions over which the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction and as such
would be entitled to a sequential referral. As in previous
bills, these generally include all sections that affect the
pay, benefits and personnel of the United States Coast Guard,
including Section 615, providing for Physicians Assistants for
the Coast Guard.
In addition to matters related to pay, benefits and
personnel of the Coast Guard, we would also be entitled to a
sequential referral of Title XIV, creating a Commission to
assess the threat to the United States from electromagnetic
pulse attack, Section 2839, regarding a land conveyance for the
Charles Melvin Price Support Center in Illinois, and Section
2881, relating to easement authority to leased parkland at the
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4205 and
the need for this legislation to move expeditiously. While we
have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the provisions
identified above, I do not intend to request a sequential
referral. This is of course conditional on our mutual
understanding that nothing in this legislation waives or
affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee, that
every effort will be made to include any agreements worked out
by our staffs as the bill is taken to the Floor and that a copy
of this letter and your response will by included in the
Committee Report and as part of the record during consideration
of this bill by the House. Our Committee would request to be
included as conferees on these provisions, as well.
Thank you for your cooperation in this manner.
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 12,
2000 regarding H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in
the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree
that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of
letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for an opportunity to review
the text of H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, for provisions which
are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources.
These provisions include those dealing with oceanography,
environmental review, benefits for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Corps, historic preservation, public
lands, and territories of the United States.
Because of the continued cooperation and consideration you
have afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, I
will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 4205 based on their
inclusion in the bill. Of course, this waiver does not
prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these
provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to
seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on
these provisions, should a conference on H.R. 4205 or a similar
measure become necessary.
Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and
Phil Grone of your staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 4205
enacted soon as a very suitable monument to your years of
distinguished service as Chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 10,
2000, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably
reported H.R. 4250, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001. The bill includes a number of provisions that
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of
Representatives.
The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction
are: (1) Section 232, Sense of Congress concerning commitment
to deployment of National Missile Defense system; (2) Section
233, Reports on ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea;
(3) Section 908, Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security
Cooperation; (4) Section 1201, Support of United Nations-
sponsored efforts to inspect and monitor Iraqi weapons
activities; (5) Section 1203, Situation in the Balkans; and (6)
Title XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the
Former Soviet Union.
With respect to Section 1204, Limitation on number of
military personnel in Colombia, it is my understanding that the
Parliamentarians continue to review our jurisdictional claim on
this provision. Because of our Committee's strong interest in
this provision, which we believe is at the heart of our
Committee's jurisdiction regarding decisions governing
intervention abroad, we will continue to seek jurisdiction over
this provision as we move toward conference committee on H.R.
4250.
Pursuant to Chairman Dreier's announcement that the
Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule
for H.R. 4250 and your desire to have the bill considered on
the House floor next week, the Committee on International
Relations will not seek a sequential referral of the bill as a
result of including these provisions, without waiving or ceding
now or in the future this committee's jurisdiction over the
provisions in question. I will seek to have conferees appointed
for these provisions during any House-Senate conference
committee.
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 4025, the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,''
which contains several items of jurisdictional interest to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Specifically, draft section 651, ``participation in the
Thrift Savings Plan,'' would permit the military to participate
in the Thrift Savings Plan. I understand that the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) is expected to score secondary revenue
losses of approximately $321 million over 5 years due to this
provision. Normally, the Committee on Ways and Means would have
a budgetary interest in such legislation. However, I am
informed that the statement of managers to accompany the
Conference Report for H. Con. Res. 290, the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 states that ``the
revenue levels in the Conference Agreement would accommodate
the revenue effects from legislation that would permit members
of the Armed Forces to participate in the Thrift Savings
Plan.''
Draft section 724 would directly amend the Medicare law
contained in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend
the Tricare Senior Prime Demonstration Project for an
additional three years.
Finally, a new draft section would authorize, in
consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, a report on the
Tethered Aerostat Radar System, used, in part, by the Customs
Service to conduct counter-drug detection and interdiction.
Normally, the Committee on Ways and Means would meet to
consider such legislation. However, in order to expedite
consideration of H.R. 4205, I will not object to the inclusion
of these items, and, for this reason, it will not be necessary
for the Committee on Ways and Means to meet to consider the
legislation.
However, this is only being done with the clear
understanding that you have agreed to accept no additional
changes on these or any other matters of concern to this
Committee during further consideration of this legislation,
including during consideration on the House floor and during a
conference with the Senate. Finally, this action is being done
with the understanding that it will not prejudice the
jurisdictional prerogatives of the Committee on Ways and Means
on these provisions or any other similar legislation and will
not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of
jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future.
Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter in your Committee Report on
the legislation. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation
in this matter. With best personal regards,
Sincerely,
Bill Archer, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 10, 2000, the Committee on Armed
Services ordered reported H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. H.R.
4205, as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services,
contains a number of provisions within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Commerce. They include:
Section 601, relating to the compensation of
uniformed officers of the Public Health Service;
Section 723, relating to Medicare subvention;
Section 724, extending a pilot program;
Section 725, extending a pilot program;
Section 736, relating to biomedical research; and,
Title XIV, creating a commission to study issues
related to electromagnetic pulse.
Because of the importance of this matter, I recognize your
desire to bring this legislation before the House in an
expeditious manner and will waive consideration of the bill by
the Commerce Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration
of the bill, the Commerce Committee does not waive its
jurisdiction over H.R. 4205. In addition, the Committee on
Commerce reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be
convened on this legislation. I ask for your commitment to
support any request by the Committee on Commerce for conferees
on H.R. 4205 or related legislation.
I request that you include this letter as a part of your
committee's report on H.R. 4205 and as part of the Record
during consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley, Chairman.
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 3(d) Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2001 and the
following four years. The results of such efforts are reflected
in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this
report pursuant to clause 3(c)(3)
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4205, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen, who can be
reached at 226-2840. If you wish further details on this
estimate, we will be pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Summary: H.R. 4205 would authorize appropriations totaling
$310 billion for fiscal year 2001 and an estimated $9 billion
for 2000 for the military functions of the Department of
Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy. It also would
prescribe personnel strengths for each active duty and selected
reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. CBO estimates that
appropriation of the authorized amounts for 2000 and 2001 would
result in additional outlays of $313 billion over the 2000-2005
period. In addition, the bill contains provisions that would
raise the costs of discretionary defense programs over the
2002-2005 period by about $8 billion, assuming appropriation of
the necessary sums.
The bill contains provisions that would affect direct
spending, primarily through demonstration projects in the
defense health program. We estimate that the direct spending
resulting from provisions of H.R. 4205 would total about $165
million over the 2001-2005 period and $151 million over the
2001-2010 period. The bill would reduce revenues by about $380
million over the 2001-2005 period and $1.1 billion over the
2001-2010 period as the result of a provision that would allow
military personnel to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan
(TSP). Because it would affect direct spending and receipts,
the bill would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.
The bill contains private-sector and intergovernmental
mandates; however, the costs of those mandates would not exceed
the thresholds specified in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 4205 is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 4205 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law for Defense
Programs:
Budget Authority \1\................ 289,218 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays................... 282,839 99,278 36,513 15,296 6,707 3,379
Proposed Changes:
Authorization of Supplemental
Appropriations:
Estimated Authorization Level 9,205 0 0 0 0 0
\2\............................
Estimated Outlays \2\........... 6,953 136 1,470 453 134 28
Authorization of Regular
Appropriations:
Authorization Level............. 0 310,182 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............... 0 199,797 65,795 24,055 9,210 4,525
Subtotal-Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level... 9,205 310,182 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............... 6,953 199,933 67,265 24,508 9,344 4,553
Spending Under H.R. 4205 for Defense
Programs:
Estimated Authorization Level 1, 2. 298,423 310,182 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays \1\............... 289,792 299,211 103,778 39,804 16,051 7,932
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority.............. 0 27 39 83 21 -5
Estimated Outlays....................... 0 27 39 83 21 -5
CHANGES IN REVENUES
Change in Income Tax Receipts........... 0 -10 -61 -82 -105 -125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
\2\ The amounts shown here for the 2000 supplemental are the total amounts in the 2000 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act as passed by the House. The outlay estimate includes $4,897 million designated as emergency
funding. Excluding emergency funds would lower total outlays in 2001 to $294,314 million.
Note.--Costs of the bill would fall within budget function 050 (national defense), except for certain items
noted in the text.
Authorizations of Appropriations
The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling
$310 billion in 2001 (see Table 2) and such sums as may be
necessary for supplemental appropriations in 2000. It would
also authorize certain payments, which are due to be made in
fiscal year 2001, to be paid instead in 2000. Most of those
costs would fall within budget function 050 (national defense).
H.R. 4205 would also authorize appropriations of $94 million
for the Maritime Administration (function 400) and $70 million
for the Armed Forces Retirement Home (function 700).
The estimate assumes that the amounts authorized for 2001
will be appropriated by October 1, 2000, and that the
authorization of supplemental appropriations would amount to $9
billion, the amount of funding passed by the House in the 2000
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. (All but $167
million of the supplemental funding is designated as an
emergency.) Outlays are estimated based on historical spending
patterns.
The bill also contains provisions that would affect various
costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the
fiscal year 2001 authorization and by authorizations in future
years. Table 3 contains estimates of those amounts. In addition
to the costs covered by the authorizations in the bill for
2001, these provisions would raise estimated costs by $8
billion over the 2002-2005 period. The following sections
describe the provisions identified in Table 3 and provide
information about CBO's cost estimates.
Multiyear Procurement Programs. In most cases, purchases of
weapon systems are authorized annually, and as a result, DoD
negotiates a separate contract for each annual purchase. In a
small number of cases, the law permits multiyear procurement;
that is, it allows DoD to enter into a contract to buy
specified annual quantities of a system for up to five years.
In those cases, DoD can negotiate lower prices because its
commitment to purchase the weapons gives the contractor an
incentive to find more economical ways to manufacture the
weapon, including cost-saving investments. Funding would
continue to be provided on an annual basis for these multiyear
contracts, but potential termination costs would be covered by
an initial appropriation.
H.R. 4205 would authorize DoD to enter into new multiyear
contracts for three weapons systems: Blackhawk (UH-60L)
helicopters, Knighthawk (CH-60S) helicopters, and Bradley
fighting vehicles. The Blackhawk and Knighthawk helicopters
would be purchased under one contract administered by the Army
and covering five years of production beginning in 2002. The
contract for the Bradley fighting vehicles would cover three
years starting in 2001. H.R. 4205 would also extend the
authorization of multiyear procurement of the Arleigh Burke
class destroyer by two years through 2005.
TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AS ORDERED
REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Authorization Level........................ 75,802 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 70,192 4,017 834 303 76
Operation and Maintenance:
Authorization Level........................ 109,709 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 1,220 20,976 4,101 1,972 703
Procurement:
Authorization Level........................ 62,300 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 14,333 19,883 14,162 5,494 3,222
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
Authorization Level........................ 39,309 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 21,513 14,105 2,599 730 192
Military Construction and Family Housing:
Authorization Level........................ 8,434 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 2,515 3,050 1,687 686 290
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
Authorization Level........................ 12,888 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 8,646 3,589 654 0 0
Other Accounts:
Authorization Level........................ 1,667 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 1,032 228 138 85 62
General Transfer Authority:
Authorization Level........................ 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 280 -60 -120 -60 -20
Total:
Authorization Level........................ 310,109 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 199,731 65,788 24,055 9,210 4,525
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4205 AS ORDERED REPORTED
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiyear Procurement:
Blackhawk and Knighthawk................... 0 -12 -9 -20 -45
Bradley Fighting Vehicle................... -8 -29 -42 0 0
Arleigh Burke Destroyer.................... 153 0 0 -192 -93
Military Endstrengths:
Department of Defense...................... -113 -233 -241 -249 -257
Coast Guard Reserve........................ 73 0 0 0 0
Grade Structure............................ 11 22 23 24 25
Compensation and Benefits (DOD):
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances............ 358 257 136 105 71
Increases in Special Pays and Bonuses...... 0 216 204 196 197
Housing Allowances......................... 315 648 952 1,272 1,608
Subsistence Allowances..................... 5 62 114 170 228
Travel and Transportation Allowances....... 48 49 50 50 51
Involuntary Separation Pay................. 30 31 32 34 35
Retention Bonus for Critical Skills........ 12 7 4 4 2
TSP Contributions.......................... 1 5 11 18 26
Other Compensation Provisions.............. 9 10 10 10 10
Military Health Care:
Tricare Pharmacy Benefit................... 94 320 481 536 595
Tricare Prime Remote....................... 50 52 54 55 57
Copayments Under Tricare Prime............. 38 39 39 39 40
Reduction of Catastrophic Cap.............. 30 30 31 31 31
Reimbursement for Travel Expenses.......... 15 23 32 33 34
Chiropractic Care.......................... 3 10 16 22 29
Patient Safety............................. 20 10 10 5 5
Other Health Care Provisions............... 7 5 11 6 5
Other Provisions:
Commissary Surcharge....................... 90 90 90 90 90
Acquisition Workforce Reductions........... -7 -63 -65 -68 -70
Tuition Reimbursement (Civilian)........... 0 6 6 6 6
Bill Total:
Estimated Authorization Level.............. 1,234 1,555 1,949 2,177 2,680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:--For every item in this table except one, the 2001 impacts are included in the amounts specifically
authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of
endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the amounts in Table 2.
CBO estimates that savings from buying the Blackhawk and
Knighthawk helicopters under a multiyear contract would total
$86 million or an average of about $22 million a year over the
2002-2005 period. Funding requirements would total just under
$2.2 billion instead of the almost $2.3 billion needed under
annual contracts. Similarly, CBO estimates that the Army would
save $79 million, or about $26 million a year, through 2003
under a multiyear contract for Bradley fighting vehicles, which
would cost about $0.9 billion over that period under current
law. CBO estimates that extending the Arleigh Burke destroyer
multiyear contract would save the Navy an additional $132
million between 2001 and 2005. Those estimates are based on
actual savings from multiyear procurement of similar systems
and the assumption that annual production will be at the levels
planned by the Administration for each of these programs.
Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve
endstrengths for 2001 and would lower the minimum endstrength
authorization in permanent law. The authorized endstrengths for
active-duty personnel and personnel in the selected reserve
would total about 1,382,000 and 866,000, respectively. The bill
would specifically authorize appropriations of $75.8 billion
for military pay and allowances in 2001. The reduction in
authorized personnel would decrease costs for salaries and
other expenses by $113 million in the first year and about $250
million annually in subsequent years, compared to the
authorized strengths for 2000.
Also, the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in
2001 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost
about $73 million and would fall under budget function 400,
transportation.
Section 414 would change the grade structure of active duty
personnel in support of the reserves. This change would not
increase the overall strength, but would result in more
promotions. The provision would cost $11 million in 2001 and
about $25 million a year in subsequent years.
Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 4205 contains several
provisions that would affect military compensation and
benefits.
Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 3.7
percent at a total cost of about $1.5 billion in 2001. Because
this pay raise would be the same as the one projected under
current law and assumed in its baseline projections, CBO
estimates no incremental costs.
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would
extend for one year DoD's authority to pay certain bonuses and
allowances to current personnel. Under current law, these
authorities are scheduled to expire in December 2000, or three
months into fiscal year 2001. The bill would extend most of
those authorities through December 2001. CBO estimates that the
cost of these extensions would be as follows:
Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel
would cost $193 million in 2001 and $111 million in 2002;
enlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost $65
million in 2001 and $29 million in 2002. (The bill would extend
the authority to pay enlistment bonuses only through September
2001);
Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would
cost $48 million in 2001 and $55 million in 2002;
Special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified
personnel would cost $44 million in 2001 and $47 million in
2002; and
Authorities to make special payments to nurse officer
candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists would
cost $8 million in 2001 and $3 million in 2002.
Extension of other authorities, including temporary early
retirement authority, special separation benefit, voluntary
separation incentive, and certain other contingent benefits
would cost $12 million in 2002. (The bill would extend the
authorities for three months past their current expiration date
of October 1, 2001.)
Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller
costs in subsequent years because payments are made in
installments.
Increases in Special Pays and Bonuses. Sections 616 through
618 would revise certain eligibility criteria and pay for
personnel with special skills. Those provisions would raise
maximum pay rates for servicemembers performing career sea duty
and certain enlisted personnel performing special duty,
including recruiters. In addition, the bill would establish a
common enlistment bonus among the services for certain
personnel on active duty, by ending the separate authority for
the Army and by revising the existing department-wide
enlistment bonus. Under section 618, the minimum enlistment
period for enlistment bonuses would decrease from four to two
years and the critical skill requirement would be eliminated.
Authority to pay the enlistment bonuses would expire December
31, 2001. These changes would have no cost in 2001 and cost
$216 million in 2002, when the changes would become effective.
Costs in subsequent years would total about $200 million
annually.
Housing Allowances. Several sections would increase housing
allowances for servicemembers within the United States. The
combination of these provisions would cost $315 million in 2001
and $4.8 billion over the 2001-2005 period.
Section 604 would revise the calculation of Basic Allowance
for Housing (BAH) within the United States by no longer
requiring that housing allowances be limited to 85 percent of
the cost of adequate housing in the United States. DoD plans to
gradually increase BAH over 5 years to reach 100 percent of
that cost by 2005. Based on that plan, CBO estimates that
higher BAH payments would cost $274 million in 2001 and $4.4
billion over the 2001-2005 period.
Section 605 would revise the basis of BAH for enlisted
members with dependents in pay grades E-1 through E-4. BAH
rates for enlisted members in these grades are currently based
on the cost of a two-bedroom apartment. Section 605 would
increase the minimum housing standard to the amount halfway
between the current standard and the cost of a two-bedroom
townhouse. This change would be effective July 1, 2001. CBO
estimates that increasing the minimum housing standard for
these enlisted members would cost $10 million in 2001 and $188
million over the 2001-2005 period.
Section 606 would allow the Secretary of Defense to pay BAH
to certain enlisted members without dependents in pay grade E-
4, who are assigned to sea duty and who sleep aboard ship when
it is in port and quarters on base are unavailable. Based on
the Navy's plan to implement this authority, and an effective
date of October 1, 2001, CBO estimates that paying BAH to these
enlisted members would cost $45 million starting in 2002 and
total $186 million over the 2002-2005 period.
Section 610 would earmark $30 million of the amount
authorized to be appropriated in 2001 for military pay and
allowances to further increase BAH within the United States.
Subsistence Allowances. Sections 602, 603, and 609 would
increase subsistence allowances for certain active-duty
servicemembers and officers prior to being commissioned. CBO
estimates that enactment of these provisions would cost $5
million in 2001 and $579 million over the 2001-2005 period.
Compared to current law, section 602 would allow a speedier
elimination of the gap between the Basic Allowance for
Subsistence (BAS) paid to enlisted members who eat off-base and
the value of subsistence provided to enlisted members who eat
in DoD dining facilities. Current law limits the annual growth
of regular BAS to 1 percent and allows for a partialallowance
to be paid to those receiving an in-kind benefit. Because the partial
allowance grows at a faster rate, the gap between the total benefits
would eventually close. CBO estimates that the cost to equalize
payments to both groups in 2001 and eliminate the 1 percent growth cap
would be $35 million in 2002 and would grow to $166 million by 2005.
Section 603 would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide a new allowance, through fiscal year 2006, for
servicemembers who meet certain eligibility criteria of the
Food Stamp program. CBO estimates that, if the Secretary
chooses to offer it, this allowance would increase personnel
costs by $5 million in fiscal year 2001 and by a total of $59
million over the 2001-2005 period.
To receive the allowance, a servicemember would apply to
DoD, providing proof that his or her household income meets the
gross income test for the Food Stamp program. The value of the
allowance would be the amount needed to make the household
ineligible for food stamps, up to a maximum of $500 per month.
In determining eligibility and the size of the allowance, DoD
would count the value of all housing assistance as income, even
if that assistance is delivered in-kind.
Under current law, CBO estimates that about 5,500
servicemembers will participate in the Food Stamp program in
2001. This estimate is based on a recent DoD survey of
servicemembers receiving food stamps, adjusted for projected
pay raises. Not all of these Food Stamp participants would be
eligible for the new allowance when the value of in-kind
housing is counted as income. Using data on the distribution of
servicemembers by pay grade and family size, CBO expects that
about 3,300 current Food Stamp recipients would be eligible for
the allowance and that another 800 servicemembers would apply,
at an average household cost of $315 per month. CBO assumes
that the allowance would be available beginning April 1, 2001,
and participation would phase in over the remainder of the
fiscal year. Once the allowance is fully phased in, the costs
are projected to decrease each year as fewer servicemembers
would be eligible for the allowance. The number of eligible
members would decline because pay rates are projected to rise
faster than the poverty threshold used to determine Food Stamp
eligibility.
If this allowance is instituted, it would make an estimated
1,100 servicemembers ineligible for food stamps and reduce
costs of the Food Stamp program by an estimated $22 million
over the 2001-2005 period. Because the decision to provide the
allowance would depend, in part, on future appropriation
action, CBO has not shown direct spending savings for this
provision.
Section 609 would increase the subsistence allowance paid
to members in precommissioning programs, effective October 1,
2001. These members currently receive a monthly allowance of
$200. Section 609 would establish a minimum monthly rate of
$250 and allow the Secretary of Defense to pay as much as $600.
CBO estimates that this increase would cost $12 million in 2002
and $50 million by 2005, when the allowance would approach the
$600 limit.
Travel and Transportation Allowances. Section 632 would
allow the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members who change
duty stations for the fees of mandatory pet quarantine, but
limit the compensation amount to $275 per change. CBO estimates
that these payments would cost $1 million a year. Section 633
would increase dislocation allowances for enlisted members with
dependents in pay grades E-1 through E-4 by requiring that the
Secretary of Defense not differentiate between grades E-1
through E-5 when determining dislocation allowances for
enlisted members with dependents. CBO estimates that paying the
resulting higher dislocation allowances would cost $6 million
in 2001 and $33 million over the 2001-2005 period. Under
section 634, the Secretary could reimburse recruiters and other
military and civilian employees assigned to certain duties for
parking expenses. CBO estimates that that the cost of paying
these parking fees would be $41 million in 2001 and $210
million over the 2001-2005 period.
Involuntary Separation Pay. Section 517 would reclassify as
involuntary the discharges of reserve officers who are twice
passed over for promotion. This would allow these members to
receive involuntary separation pay. Based on information from
DoD, CBO estimates that approximately 550 reserve officers a
year would become eligible for separation pay under this
provision. CBO estimates that enactment of section 517 would
cost $30 million in 2001 and $162 million over the 2001-2005
period.
New Retention Bonus for Critical Skills. Section 619 would
authorize a new retention bonus for military personnel with
critical skills who extend their period of duty by at least one
additional year. This new bonus could be paid in addition to
the current selected reenlistment bonus available to certain
enlisted members and certain other compensation provided to
officers. The authority to offer this bonus would expire on
December 31, 2001. CBO estimates that this new retention bonus
would cost $12 million in 2001. Smaller costs would be incurred
in subsequent years because payments are made in installments.
TSP Contributions. Under section 651, the Secretary of
Defense could make contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan
(TSP) for military personnel in designated occupational
specialties who commit to serve on active duty in that
specialty for a period of six years. Based on DoD's use of
similar authority to award bonuses for enlistment or
reenlistment, CBO estimates that the discretionary costs for
the agency contributions to TSP would total $1 million in 2001
and $26 million by 2005, based on an effective date of July 15,
2001.
Other Compensation Provisions. Section 641 would raise
reserve retirement pay by increasing the number of days that
can be counted in the retirement pay calculation. The military
retirement system is financed in part by an annual payment from
appropriated funds to the military retirement trust fund, based
on an estimate of the system's accruing liabilities. If the
bill is enacted, the yearly contribution to the military
retirement trust fund (a DoD outlay in budget function 050)
would increase to reflect the added liability from the increase
in retirement pay. The payment into the trust fund is
discretionary because it depends on whether and how much
funding is made available each year for military personnel.
Using information from DoD, CBO estimates that implementing
this bill would increase such payments by $4 million in 2001,
$23 million over the 2001-2005 period, and $50 million over the
2001-2010 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary
amounts. This provision would also increase outlays from the
retirement trust fund. Those costs are discussed under the
heading of direct spending.
CBO estimates that increases in allowances paid to officers
for purchasing uniforms and equipment would cost $5 million a
year under section 608.
Military Health Care. Title VII contains several provisions
that would affect DoD health care and benefits. Tricare is the
name of DoD's three-part health care program: Tricare Prime is
a managed care option; Tricare Extra is a preferred provider
program; and Tricare Standard is a fee-for-service program of
other participating providers.
Tricare Pharmacy Benefit. Section 721 would allow military
beneficiaries age 65 and over to use DoD's National Mail Order
Pharmacy (NMOP) and retail networks, and would allow Tricare to
pay 75 percent of all pharmacy claims after each beneficiary
meets an annual $150 deductible. CBO estimates that this
provision would affect about 360,000 individuals who do not
currently use DoD for pharmacy benefits, and about 450,000
beneficiaries who areeligible for the NMOP and retail networks
but do not have access to the Tricare insurance for reimbursement.
Because the program would not take effect until April 1, 2001, the cost
in fiscal year 2001 is comparatively low. CBO estimates that providing
the Tricare pharmacy benefit to seniors would cost $94 million in 2001
and a little more than $2 billion over the 2001-2005 period.
Tricare Prime Remote. Under current law, members of the
armed forces on active duty who live far enough away from a
military treatment facility (MTF) are eligible to participate
in what DoD calls Tricare Prime Remote. This program allows
such personnel to receive care without facing the co-insurance
and deductibles that they would otherwise face if they used
Tricare Standard. To implement the program, DoD either
establishes a network of providers for the active-duty
personnel, or it waives the copayments and deductibles when
claims are filed under Tricare Standard. In many cases, where
the cost of setting up networks is more costly than the cost of
waiving such payments, DoD just waives the deductibles and co-
insurance.
Section 711 would grant the Tricare Prime Remote benefit to
dependents of members of the armed forces on active duty and to
other members of the uniformed services (e.g., uniformed
members of the Public Health Service) and their dependents.
Using data from DoD, CBO estimates that roughly 71,000 people
in remote locations already use Tricare Standard or Extra.
DoD's only additional cost for those beneficiaries would come
from waiving the co-insurance and deductibles. CBO expects that
almost 4,000 people who do not currently use Tricare insurance
would enroll in Tricare Prime Remote under the bill because of
the lower out-of-pocket costs. Those beneficiaries would cost
DoD significantly more per person. CBO estimates that
establishing Tricare Prime Remote for the 75,000 new
beneficiaries would cost $50 million in 2001 and $268 million
over the 2001-2005 period.
Copayments Under Tricare Prime. Under current law,
beneficiaries who use MTFs do not need to make any copayments,
but beneficiaries enrolled in Tricare Prime, the military
health care system's managed care option, are required to make
copayments whenever they visit a civilian doctor. In 1999,
dependents of active-duty personnel who are enrolled in Tricare
Prime saw civilian doctors about 2.4 million times. Section 712
would eliminate the requirement for those copayments.
(Beneficiaries who use Tricare Standard or Extra would still
have to pay the applicable co-insurance amounts for each
civilian visit.)
CBO estimates that this change would cost $38 million in
2001 and $195 million over the 2001-2005 period. Reimbursing
Tricare insurance providers for lost revenue would compose
about 70 percent of DoD's cost. The remaining 30 percent of the
estimated cost results because the lack of cost sharing would
likely increase the number of visits to civilian doctors.
Reduction of Catastrophic Cap. Under current law,
beneficiaries who use Tricare Standard or Extra must pay
deductibles and co-insurance up to a cap of $7,500 each year.
DoD is responsible for any costs over $7,500. Section 718 would
lower this cap from $7,500 to $3,000 per family. CBO estimates
that lowering the cap would cost $30 million in 2001 and $153
million over the 2001-2005 period. Using data from the Medical
Expense Panel Survey, conducted by the Department of Health and
Human Services, CBO estimates that about 3 percent of the
population has out-of-pocket costs greater than $3,000.
Applying this to the DoD population that uses Tricare Standard
or Extra yields roughly 14,000 people that would be affected by
this provision. Assuming a uniform distribution of expenditures
across the range from the new cap ($3,000) to the existing cap
($7,500), CBO estimates that DoD's costs would rise by an
average of just under $2,250 per person.
Reimbursement for Travel Expenses. Under current law, when
somebody using the military health system is referred to a new
doctor or hospital, the costs of traveling to the new location
are paid by the individual. Section 717 would require the
Secretary of Defense to reimburse reasonable travel expenses
for anybody who had to travel more than 100 miles because of a
medical referral. CBO estimates that this provision would apply
about 50,000 times each year and that in about one-third of
those cases, additional expenses would be incurred for
individuals who must accompany the patient. CBO also expects
that reimbursements would average about $650 per occurrence,
although those costs would rise with inflation. CBO estimates
that implementing this proposal would cost $15 million in 2001
and $137 million over the 2001-2005 period.
Chiropractic Care. Section 737 would require DoD to
continue providing chiropractic care in 2001 at MTFs where such
care is currently provided. The bill would require a five-year
phase-in period beginning in 2002 for DoD to provide
chiropractic care to all members of the uniformed services. The
costs are initially low because of the phase-in period. CBO
estimates that the provision would cost $3 million in 2001 and
$80 million over the 2001-2005 period.
Patient Safety. Section 733 would require DoD to set up a
centralized process for tracking and reporting mistakes in the
provision of health care that endangers patient safety. Simple
reporting is part of DoD's current effort to improve services,
but more complex reporting would likely require substantial
investments in information technology. Based on information
from DoD, CBO estimates that this provision would cost the
department about $50 million over the 2001-2005 period,
primarily for the purchase of computer equipment and software
support.
Other Health Care Provisions. Title VII also contains
several proposals that would cost relatively little over the
2001-2005 period, including some temporary authorities and
demonstration projects. CBO estimates that implementing all of
these additional health care provisions would cost $7 million
in 2001 and $34 million over the 2001-2005 period.
The Congress authorized a demonstration program, called
Tricare Senior Supplement, at two sites during a period ending
December 2002 where Tricare acts as second-payer to Medicare
for those beneficiaries who have enrolled in the program.
Enrollment for the demonstration program began in March of
2000. Enrollees must pay a fee and are no longer eligible to
use MTFs. Section 724 would extend the demonstration program
through the end of calendar year 2003. CBO estimates that this
provision would cost $5 million over the 2003-2004 period.
Those costs would be discretionary, but extending this
demonstration program would also raise Medicare costs because
better insurance tends to increase the use of health care. CBO
estimates that the Medicare costs of Tricare Senior Supplement
would be about $1 million over the 2003-2004 period.
Other health care provisions that would have discretionary
budgetary effects are as follows:
Section 715 would prohibit Tricare insurers from requiring
prior authorization for specialty medical care if the provider
of that specialty care is part of the Tricare network. CBO
estimates that this provision would cost $5 million a year.
Section 701 would extend for two years the authority to
employ physicians on a contract basis under certain conditions,
including at entrance processing stations. CBO estimates that
this provision would save $6 million over the two years.
Section 702 would allow all recipients of the Medal of
Honor and their dependents to have access to the military
health system and would cost less than $500,000 a year.
Section 703 would allow DoD to pay for domiciliary and
custodial care for certain Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. CBO
estimates that the cost of this proposal would be less than
$500,000 a year.
Section 704 would authorize a two-year demonstration
program allowing all DoD beneficiaries to use mental health
facilities without the need for prior authorization and
supervision. CBO estimates that this would cost $6 million over
the two years.
Section 705 would authorize a two-year teleradiology
demonstration project. CBO estimates the cost would be $4
million, assuming that the sites require new equipment.
Section 720 would allow beneficiaries enrolled in the
Tricare retiree dental program to withdraw under special
circumstances. CBO estimates that this would cost less than
$500,000 a year.
Commissary Surcharge. Subtitle C of title III would make
several changes to laws governing DoD's commissaries, and CBO
estimates that their combined cost would be about $90 million a
year. The commissary system is supported through a mix of
appropriated and nonappropriated funding. One source of
nonappropriated funds, a surcharge on grocery bills, funds a
combination of operating expenses and construction costs. The
bill would limit DoD to using the collections from the
surcharge for only construction or improvement of commissary
stores. Funding from that source that now goes for other
purposes would have to be made up with discretionary
appropriations. CBO estimates those costs to be about $90
million a year, based on information from DoD.
Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce. The bill would
limit the size of the acquisition workforce by requiring a
reduction of at least 13,000 military and civilian personnel
during fiscal year 2001. Because the total number of military
personnel is determined by endstrength requirements, CBO
assumes that the provision would lead to their transfer to
other activities rather than separation from the services.
Separations of civilian personnel, who comprise about 80
percent of the acquisition workforce, would account for the
remaining reductions. Because these civilian reductions would
exceed those expected under current law, CBO estimates savings
of $7 million in 2001, $63 million in 2002, and similar amounts
in subsequent years. Savings would be relatively small during
the first year because the cost of separation payments would
offset most of the initial savings in salaries.
Tuition Reimbursement for Civilians. Section 1103 would
extend for five years a program to reimburse certain civilians
in the acquisition workforce for tuition expenses. Based on
recent funding levels for that program, CBO estimates that
section 1103 would cost about $6 million a year starting in
2002.
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI). Section
2803 would extend from 2001 to 2006 special authorities to
finance the construction and renovation of military family
housing. It would authorize DoD to continue to use direct
loans, loan guarantees, long-term leases, rental guarantees,
barter, direct government investment, and other financial
arrangements to encourage private-sector participation in
building military housing. Funding for those activities is
contained in the Family Housing Improvement Fund and would
consist of direct appropriations to the fund, transfers from
other accounts, receipts from property sales and rents, returns
on any capital, and other income from operations or
transactions connected with the program. The amounts in the
fund would be available to acquire housing using the various
techniques mentioned above, but the total value of budget
authority for all contracts and investments undertaken would be
limited to $1 billion.
The bill would not explicitly authorize appropriations for
the fund, and based on how the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has treated recent use of the authority, CBO does not
estimate any budgetary impact from extending the authorities.
However, CBO believes that OMB's current accounting for MHPI
initiatives is at odds with government-wide standards for
recording obligations and outlays. Those standards call for
different treatments depending on the character of the
transaction. The OMB accounting treats certain initiatives
primarily as matters of credit reform that have relatively
little cost in terms of recorded obligations and outlays. In
contrast, CBO considers those initiatives as having the
characteristics of lease-purchases, which call for recording
higher levels of obligations and outlays. The budgetary effect
of the Administration's approach (compared to CBO's) is to
allow DoD to obligate significantly more federal resources than
the $1 billion allocated for such projects.
Government-wide Accounting Principles. Some of the options
available for use of the Family Housing Improvement Fund
involve up-front commitments of government resources that would
be spent over a long period of time. According to standard
principles of federal accounting, obligations of the fund
should reflect the full amount of the financial liability
incurred when the government makes such a commitment. In the
case of a long-term capital lease or rental guarantee, for
example, obligations should equal the total amount of lease or
rental payments over the life of the contract, and
appropriations to cover the full amount of such obligations
should be available before entering into the lease or
guarantee. Some commitments could take the form of lease-
purchases, which would require the recording of both
obligations and outlays up front. For a direct loan or loan
guarantee, obligations should equal the estimated present value
of federal transactions with the public, excluding receipts
from other federal budget accounts that depend on the
availability of future appropriations.
Actual Accounting for Current DoD Projects. To date, DoD
has signed contracts for four projects and will soon finalize
12 others. The common thread among the projects so far is that
regular appropriations directly finance only a small portion of
the construction costs; most costs initially are paid by
developers, who borrow funds from private markets. The
developers will repay the loans from the government and the
private sector using rent received from servicemembers who pay
their housing costs with their allowances, which are provided
as part of appropriations for military personnel. If rents
exceed the servicemembers' housing allowances, DoD can make up
the difference. The four projects underway are as follows:
Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), Texas: In exchange for the
construction of 420 housing units, the Air Force provided the
contractor with a long-term lease of federal land, a direct
loan of $11 million, and a guarantee of a private-sector loan
($30 million) against base closure, downsizing, and substantial
redeployment of units based at Lackland. The Administration
recorded an obligation of $6 million for the transaction.
Fort Carson, Colorado: For construction of 840 units and
renovation of 1,800 others, the Army provided a long-term lease
of federal land, title to existing housing, and a $220 million
loan guarantee against base closure, downsizing, and
substantial redeployment. The Administration recorded an
obligation of $10 million for the transaction.
Naval Station Everett, Washington: For construction of 185
units and a share of proceeds and equity, the Navy provided an
equity investment of $6 million and funds the difference
between the rent and the member's housing allowance. Occupants
have the right to purchase the units at below-market prices
during the last five years of the 10-year partnership. The
recorded obligation totaled $9 million from the equity
investment ($6 million) and the differential lease payments ($3
million).
Corpus Christi, Texas: In exchange for 404 units of off-
base housing and a share of proceeds and equity, the Navy
provided an equity investment of $10 million and funds the
difference between the rent and the member's housing allowance.
The recorded obligation amounted to $19 million from the equity
investment ($10 million) and the differential lease payments
($9 million).
Thus, for these four projects DoD obtained about $320
million worth of housing at the expense of $44 million in
obligational authority.
MHPI Under Government-wide Accounting Principles. The
principles guiding the accounting for programs like the MHPI
are defined in the conference report to the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 (H. Rept. 105-217, pages 1007-1012). CBO believes that
the four listed projects meet the criteria stated in the
scorekeeping guidelines for a lease-purchase with substantial
government risk. Although current MHPI projects employ tools
like direct loans, they are more fundamentally projects that
achieve the practical effects of government ownership of the
properties. Thus, up-front scoring of obligations and outlays
is more appropriate than the methods of credit reform.
In CBO's view, those guidelines require the up-front
accounting of obligations and outlays for those four projects
and for other similar projects this bill would make possible.
First, the construction is occurring on federal land for at
least two of the four projects. Second, the private-sector
market for the housing will be sharply constrained. On-base
housing will probably be restricted to military personnel for
security and other such reasons. Off-base housing must first be
offered to servicemembers over civilians, and since demand for
on-base housing exceeds supply, the practical effect would
likely be the same as for a federally constructed facility.
Third, although DoD is not providing an open-ended guarantee of
third-party financing, it is essentially committing itself to
providing tenants. Finally, DoD is providing the developers
with significant portions of their up-front equity, including
direct loans and cash investments.
In sum, the lease-purchase criteria clearly apply to the
two projects on government property (Lackland AFB and Fort
Carson). The proper treatment of the other two projects is less
clear, but on balance, CBO believes that they too are the
equivalent of lease-purchases with substantial government risk
because the housing units will be built or renovated for
governmental purposes and would be based on a significant
financial commitment by the government. On that basis, the true
obligations and outlays from current projects are higher than
were recorded, as would be the obligations and outlays from
future projects if they are recorded the same way.
Table 4 shows how CBO believes these projects should be
recorded in the budget, compared to the approach used by the
Administration.
TABLE 4.--ILLUSTRATIVE SCORING OF MHPI AUTHORITIES FOR FOUR PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
-----------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration Approach to Scoring:
Estimated Obligation.................................. 44 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 24 7 4 1 1 1
CBO Approach to Scoring:
Estimated Obligation.................................. 320 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 100 160 50 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office based on information from the Department of Defense.
Note: This table illustrates the approach that the Administration uses for recording obligations and outlays for
four MHPI projects compared to the approach that CBO believes would be in keeping with government-wide
accounting principles. The four projects are family housing initiatives at Lackland AFB, Ft. Carson, Naval
Station Everett, and Corpus Christi. For illustrative purposes, we assume the obligations for the four
projects occur in 2000 even though actual obligations occurred in other years.
Direct Spending
The bill contains provisions that would affect direct
spending primarily through changes to defense health programs.
We estimate that the direct spending from provisions of H.R.
4205 would total about $165 million over the 2001-2005 period.
Demonstration of Medicare Subvention. DoD provides health
care to almost 350,000 retirees and survivors who are over age
64 and eligible for Medicare. This health care is provided at
MTFs on a space-available basis and includes some services that
Medicare does not cover, primarily prescription drugs. Under
current law, DoD cannot bill Medicare for the cost of providing
health care to those beneficiaries over age 64 except in a
demonstration project.
The Congress authorized a demonstration project at up to
six sites beginning in January 1998 and ending in December
2000. Under that demonstration, DoD provides care to Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries and is reimbursed under certain
conditions by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA),
which administers Medicare. The most important condition is the
requirement that DoD maintain a level of effort; any additional
care is reimbursable by HCFA up to a cap set in law. This care
and reimbursement procedure is known as Medicare subvention. To
date, however, HCFA has not reimbursed DoD for any care
provided under this program.
Section 725 would extend the demonstration project for
three more years, through the end of 2003. In the current
demonstration project, enrolled beneficiaries use substantially
more care than civilians enrolled in Medicare managed care
plans. Because these enrollees have a high priority for care in
MTFs, Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who now receive space-
available care at MTFs and choose not to enroll in the
subvention program would not be able to use the MTFs as
frequently as they otherwise would. Instead, they would obtain
more of their care in the private sector, thus raising costs
for the Medicare program because Medicare would be paying for
some services that would otherwise be provided at MTFs. CBO
estimates that these provisions would cost $20 million in 2001
and $95 million over the 2001-2005 period (see Table 5).
FEHB Demonstration Program. Under current law, military
retirees under the age of 65 are eligible to either enroll in
DoD's managed care program (Tricare Prime) or use one of its
insurance programs (Tricare Standard or Extra). Those who use
Tricare Standard or Extra may also seek care at an MTF on a
space-available basis. Once retirees turn age 65, they are no
longer eligible to use Tricare, though they may continue to
seek care at an MTF when space is available. The same
eligibility rules apply to survivors, who are primarily widows
and widowers.
Section 723 would extend a current demonstration project by
three years (through December 2005), increase the number of
eligible sites, and allow new or extended enrollment in all
sites. The demonstration allows up to 66,000 people to enroll
in FEHB at up to 10 sites, though only about 2,000 people are
currently enrolled. Because there would be more sites and
increased familiarity with the program, CBO estimates that the
program would eventually cover a total of about 13,000 people--
10,000 in existing sites and 3,000 in new sites under H.R.
4205. Expanding coverage to new sites would cost $18 million
over 2001 and 2002, and extending the demonstration project for
one more year would cost an additional $63 million over the
2003-2005 period. The government's contribution toward FEHB
premiums for beneficiaries under H.R. 4205 would be direct
spending because the bill would add an entitlement benefit.
TABLE 5.--ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4205
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT SPENDING
Cost Increases in Medicare
Spending Under Current Law:
Estimated Budget Authority................ 195,113 211,518 217,077 234,887 250,997 274,149
Estimated Outlays......................... 195,113 211,518 217,077 234,887 250,997 274,149
Proposed Changes:
Medicare Subvention:
Estimated Budget Authority............ 0 20 30 35 10 0
Estimated Outlays..................... 0 20 30 35 10 0
FEHB Demonstration Project:
Estimated Budget Authority............ 0 1 1 4 1 0
Estimated Outlays..................... 0 1 1 4 1 0
Tricare Senior Supplement:
Estimated Budget Authority............ 0 0 0 1 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................... 0 0 0 1 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal-Proposed Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority........ 0 21 31 40 11 0
Estimated Outlays................. 0 21 31 40 11 0
Spending Under H.R. 4205:
Estimated Budget Authority................ 195,113 211,539 217,108 234,927 251,008 274,149
Estimated Outlays......................... 195,113 211,539 217,108 234,927 251,008 274,149
Costs of Premium Payments Under FEHB
Spending Under Current Law:
Estimated Budget Authority................ 5,012 5,456 5,906 6,352 6,826 7,338
Estimated Outlays......................... 5,012 5,456 5,906 6,352 6,826 7,338
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority................ 0 7 11 48 15 0
Estimated Outlays......................... 0 7 11 48 15 0
Spending Under H.R. 4205:
Estimated Budget Authority................ 5,012 5,463 5,917 6,400 6,841 7,338
Estimated Outlays......................... 5,012 5,463 5,917 6,400 6,841 7,338
Total Changes in Direct Spending--Health Care
Provisions
Estimated Budget Authority.................... 0 28 42 88 26 0
Estimated Outlays............................. 0 28 42 88 26 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, extending the demonstration would tend to
raise Medicare costs because better insurance coverage often
leads to greater use of health care services. That increase
would cost an estimated $7 million over the 2001-2005 period.
Tricare Senior Supplement. This program involves Tricare
Standard and Extra in a demonstration project for retirees over
age 64 and their dependents. The costs to DoD for those
programs are treated as discretionary, but expanding them to
cover beneficiaries of Medicare would raise direct spending by
$1 million in 2003 (and by less than $500,000 in 2004). Other
costs of Tricare Senior Supplement are discussed above with
other spending subject to appropriation.
Retirement of Reserve Technicians. The reserves employ a
number of civilian federal workers to perform administrative
and maintenance tasks. These employees, known as military
technicians, are usually required to be members of the reserve
units for which they work. Under current law, employees who
lose their membership in the reserves and were hired before
February 10, 1996, have to retire as soon as they become
eligible for an unreduced annuity under one of the civilian
retirement programs. Section 518 of the bill would allow these
employees to remain in their positions until they become
eligible for an unreduced annuity or reach age 60, whichever is
later. Technicians who have already been forced to retire and
are under age 60 would be able to apply for reinstatement.
Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 500
technicians would be affected by this provision. This includes
400 technicians who, under current law, would retire during the
2001-2005 period, and 100 technicians who have already retired
but would be reinstated to their old positions. By allowing
these technicians to delay their retirement, CBO estimates this
bill would reduce spending on federal retirement benefits
(function 600, income security) by $17 million over the 2001-
2005 period. Since many technicians would be covered by the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (function 550,
health) after their retirement, this provision would also
reduce direct spending in that program by $3 million over the
same period.
Retroactive Housing Allowances. Section 604 would authorize
retroactive BAH payments to compensate members who received
lower BAH during January and February of 2000 compared to the
BAH rate they received prior to December 31, 1999. CBO
estimates that these retroactive payments would cost $1 million
in 2001.
Property Transactions. Title XXVIII contains a variety of
provisions that would authorize DoD to convey or lease land to
nonfederal entities. These transactions would affect both large
and small properties, ranging from about 700 acres at Fort
Pickett, Virginia to about two acres at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Conveyances. Some property that would be conveyed under
title XXVIII has been--or soon will be--declared excess by DoD
and transferred to the General Services Administration (GSA)
for disposal. In some instances, GSA is likely to give the
property to state or local governments, and in those cases
conveyances would not affect receipts. In other instances, such
as the conveyances of about 5 acres containing an Army Reserve
Center in Galesburg, Illinois and about 100 acres at Fort Polk,
Louisiana, the property would likely be sold under current law.
Based on information from DoD, forgone receipts from these
conveyances would total less than $500,000.
CBO has not received any information from the
Administration on other parcels specified in the bill, some of
which are large and potentially worth $1 million or
more.Because CBO has no basis for knowing whether these parcels have
been or will be declared excess and sold under current law, CBO cannot
estimate the extent of any forgone receipts.
Leases. Section 2851 would allow the Navy to receive in-
kind consideration for the lease of property at Port Hueneme,
California. Under current law, the Navy will receive cash for
that lease. CBO estimates that this provision would lower
receipts by less than $500,000 annually.
Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an
insignificant budgetary impact:
Section 506 would allow retirees receiving Voluntary
Separation Incentive (VSI) payments concurrently with retired
or retainer pay to give up the VSI payment. Currently,
retirement pay is reduced by the amount of VSI payments. The
formula for the offset causes retirement pay to be reduced by
future VSI payments. Terminating participation in the program
would accelerate outlays for military retirement. Based on
information from DOD, CBO expects few people would be affected
by this provision.
Section 641 would increase reserve retirement pay by giving
more credit toward annuities for time spent in training. While
CBO estimates this provision would have a substantial effect
when today's reservists reach 60 years of age and would begin
to collect retirement benefits under this new rule, it would
affect few people during the next 10 years.
Section 642 would increase participation in the Reserve
Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) by requiring certain
reservists to obtain spousal consent to waive participation.
Spousal consent is already required for reservists over 60
years of age. This provision would make that requirement
effective when the reservist is first notified that he or she
has completed the years of service required for retirement
eligibility. CBO estimates the provision would create a
negligible increase in payments to annuitants.
Revenues
Section 651 would allow members of the uniformed services
on active duty and members of the Ready Reserve in any pay
status to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
Contributions would be capped at 5.0 percent of basic pay. In
addition, servicemembers would be able to contribute income
they receive in the form of special or incentive pay to the
extent allowable under the Internal Revenue Code. This
provision would become effective July 15, 2001, or earlier if
certain legislative conditions are met. The Joint Committee on
Taxation estimates that the revenue loss caused by deferred
income tax payments would total $10 million in 2001 and $1.1
billion over the 2001-2010 period.
Pay-as-you-go considerations
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts. The net changes in direct spending that
would result from H.R. 4205 are shown in Table 6. For the
purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the
effects in the current year, the budget year, and the
succeeding four years are counted.
TABLE 6.--ESTIMATED IMPACT OF H.R. 4205 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays................................... 0 27 39 83 21 -5 -4 -4 -3 -2 -1
Changes in receipts.................................. 0 -10 -61 -82 -105 -125 -135 -144 -153 -162 -171
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact
The bill contains both intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates, including one preemption of state law. None of the
mandates would impose significant costs; therefore, the
thresholds established by UMRA ($55 million for
intergovernmental mandates and $109 million for private sector
mandates in 2000, adjusted annually for inflation) would not be
exceeded.
The bill would give the Secretary of Defense the authority
to require recipients of military equipment either to ensure
that the equipment is demilitarized or to return the equipment
to DoD for demilitarization. The Secretary of Defense could
also repossess the equipment under some circumstances. In all
of those cases, the requirements would be considered
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates because, if the
equipment is not returned to DoD for demilitarization, the
recipient would have to bear the costs of demilitarizing the
equipment. However, this provision would be rarely used
because, in most cases, DoD demilitarizes equipment prior to
transferring ownership. Consequently, the costs of this mandate
would be minimal.
The bill would extend and expand a demonstration project
that involves intergovernmental and private sector mandates.
Specifically, it would require insurers, under certain
circumstances, to issue medigap policies to Medicare enrollees
who choose to drop coverage from DoD's Federal Employees Health
Benefits demonstration program. The bill would also prohibit
insurers from discriminating in the pricing of such policies
based on an individual's health status or use of care, or from
using coverage exclusions for preexisting conditions as long as
any lapse in coverage was no more than 63 days. Those
requirements would be intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA. However, because only a small
number of people could be affected by these provisions, the
direct costs of the mandates would be small.
In addition, the bill contains a mandate affecting only
state governments. It would give legal effect to military
testamentary instruments regardless of the provisions of state
law. (A testamentary instrument is a document intended to take
effect after the death of the person who executes it.) This
provision would preempt state laws governing the execution of
such documents; however, it would impose no costs on those
governments.
The bill also would convey lands to state and local
entities, provide support for cooperative efforts between the
Civil Air Patrol and state and local governments, and authorize
funding for assistance to local school districts and agencies.
Estimate Prepared By.--Federal Costs: Military Construction
and Other Defense--Kent Christensen, Military and Civilian
Personnel--Dawn Regan, Civilian Retirement--Eric Rollins, Food
Stamps--Valerie Baxter, Stockpile Sales and Atomic Energy
Defense Activities--Raymond Hall, Military Retirement--Sarah
Jennings, Health Programs--Sam Papenfuss, Medicare Subvention--
Tom Bradley, Multiyear Procurement--Jo Ann Vines, Maritime
Administration--Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local, and
Tribal Governments: Leo Lex. Impact on the Private Sector:
William Thomas.
Estimate Approved By: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
the estimates as contained in the report of the Congressional
Budget Office.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the committee has not received a
report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 4205.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
intergovernmental mandates.
RECORD VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken
with respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 4205. The
record of these votes is attached to this report.
The committee ordered H.R. 4205 reported to the House with
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 56-1, a quorum being
present.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
* * * * * * *
SEC. 116. BUNKER DEFEAT MUNITION ACQUISITION PROGRAM.
The Secretary of the Army, in acquiring munitions under the
bunker defeat munition weapons acquisition program--
(1) may acquire only those munitions that are
designated as ``type classified, limited procurement
for contingency operations''; and
(2) may not acquire more than [6,000] 8,500 such
munitions.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 816. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON PURCHASE OF FIRE, SECURITY, POLICE,
PUBLIC WORKS, AND UTILITY SERVICES FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Duration of Project.--The authority to purchase or
receive services under the demonstration project shall expire
on September 30, [2000] 2002.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO ALLIES AND OTHER NATIONS
Subtitle A--Matters Relating to NATO
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1306. GEORGE C. MARSHALL EUROPEAN CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES.
[(a) Use of Contributions.--Funds received by the United
States Government from the Federal Republic of Germany as its
fair share of the costs of the George C. Marshall European
Center for Security Studies shall be credited to appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for the George C.
Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Funds so
credited shall be merged with the appropriations to which
credited and shall be available for the Center for the same
purposes and the same period as the appropriations with which
merged.
[(b) Waiver of Charges.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
waive reimbursement of the costs of conferences, seminars,
courses of instruction, or similar educational activities of
the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies for
military officers and civilian officials of cooperation partner
states of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council or the
Partnership for Peace if the Secretary determines that
attendance by such personnel without reimbursement is in the
national security interest of the United States.]
* * * * * * *
----------
ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING SUPPORT ACT OF 1992
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle H--Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative
* * * * * * *
SEC. 193. ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING SUPPORT INITIATIVE.
(a) Authority for Initiative.--During fiscal years 1993
through [2001] 2002, the Secretary of the Army may carry out a
program to be known as the ``Armament Retooling and
Manufacturing Support Initiative'' (hereinafter in this
subtitle referred to as the ``ARMS Initiative'').
* * * * * * *
(d) Inclusion of Manufacturing Arsenals.--For purposes of
this Act, a manufacturing arsenal of the Department of the Army
shall be treated as a Government-owned, contractor-operated
manufacturing facility of the Department of the Army.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 194. FACILITIES CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--In the case of each Government-owned,
contractor-operated ammunition manufacturing facility of the
Department of the Army that is made available for the ARMS
Initiative, the Secretary of the Army may, by contract,
authorize the facility contractor--
[(1) to use the facility for one or more years
consistent with the purposes of the ARMS Initiative;
and]
(1) to use the facility for any period of time that
the Secretary determines is appropriate for the
accomplishment of, and consistent with, the needs of
the Department of the Army and the purposes of the ARMS
Initiative; and
(2) to enter into multiyear subcontracts for the
commercial use of the facility consistent with such
purposes.
* * * * * * *
(c) Authority to Accept Non-Monetary Consideration for Use of
Facilities.--The Secretary may accept non-monetary
consideration in lieu of rental payments for use of a facility
under a contract entered into under this section.
----------
TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--General Military Law
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 117. Readiness reporting system: establishment; reporting to
congressional committees
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Capabilities.--The readiness reporting system shall
measure such factors relating to readiness as the Secretary
prescribes, except that the system shall include the capability
to do each of the following:
(1) Measure, on a monthly basis, the capability of
units (both as elements of their respective armed force
and as elements of joint forces) to conduct their
assigned wartime missions.
* * * * * * *
(7) Measure, on a quarterly basis, the extent to
which units of the armed forces remove serviceable
parts, supplies, or equipment from one vehicle, vessel,
or aircraft in order to render a different vehicle,
vessel, or aircraft operational.
* * * * * * *
(e) Submission to Congressional Committees.--(1) The
Secretary shall each month submit to the Committee on Armed
Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and
the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report in
writing containing the results of the most recent joint
readiness review or monthly review conducted under subsection
(d), including the current information derived from the
readiness reporting system. [Each such report]
(2) The monthly report submitted under paragraph (1) that
covers the first quarter of the then current fiscal year shall
also include a description of the funding proposed in the
President's budget for the next fiscal year, and for the
subsequent fiscal years covered by the most recent future-years
defense program submitted under section 221 of this title, to
address each deficiency in readiness identified during the
joint readiness review conducted for the first quarter of the
current fiscal year.
(3) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted in
unclassified form and may, as the Secretary determines
necessary, also be submitted in classified form.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 4--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Sec.
131. Office of the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
144. Director of Mission-Essential Software Management.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 144. Director of Mission-Essential Software Management
(a) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics shall designate within the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics a Director of Mission-Essential Software Management.
(b) The Director of Mission-Essential Software Management
shall provide effective oversight of, and shall seek to improve
mechanisms for, the management, development, and maintenance of
mission-essential software for major defense acquisition
programs described in subsection (c).
(c) For purposes of this section, mission-essential software
for major defense acquisition programs is software--
(1) that is an integral part of software-intensive
major defense acquisition programs; and
(2) that is physically part of, dedicated to, or
essential to the mission performance of a weapons
system.
(d) The Director of Mission-Essential Software Management
shall be responsible for--
(1) reviewing the policies and practices of the
military departments and Defense Agencies for
developing software described in subsection (c);
(2) reviewing planning and progress in the management
of such software; and
(3) recommending goals and plans to improve
management with respect to such software.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements
(a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of
Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the
amount requested for activities of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization shall be set forth in accordance with the
following program elements:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(13) Airborne Laser program.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES
* * * * * * *
Sec.
171. Armed Forces Policy Council.
* * * * * * *
184. Regional Centers for Security Studies.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 184. Regional Centers for Security Studies
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
of Defense may operate in the Department of Defense regional
centers for security studies, each of which is established for
a specified geographic region of the world. Any such regional
center shall serve as a forum for bilateral and multilateral
communication and military and civilian exchanges with nations
in the region for which the centeris established. A regional
center may, as the Secretary considers appropriate, use professional
military education, civilian defense education, and related academic
and other activities to pursue such communication and exchanges.
(2) After the date of the enactment of this section, a
regional center for security studies as described in paragraph
(1) may not be established in the Department of Defense until
at least 90 days after the date on which the Secretary of
Defense submits to Congress a notification of the intent of the
Secretary to establish the center. The notification shall
contain a description of the mission and functions of the
proposed center and a justification for the proposed center.
(b) Employment and Compensation of Faculty.--Section 1595 of
this title provides authority for the Secretary of Defense to
employ certain civilian personnel at certain Department of
Defense regional center for security studies without regard to
certain provisions of title 5.
(c) Acceptance of Foreign Gifts and Donations.--Section 2611
of this title provides authority for the Secretary of Defense
to accept foreign gifts and donations in order to defray the
costs of, or enhance the operations of, certain Department of
Defense regional centers for security studies.
(d) Annual Report to Congressional Committees.--The Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives an annual report on the status, objectives, and
operations of the Department of Defense regional centers for
security studies. Each such report shall include information on
international participation in the programs of the centers and
on foreign gifts and donations accepted under section 2611 of
this title.
(e) Provisions Relating Specifically to Marshall Center.--(1)
The Secretary of Defense may waive reimbursement of the costs
of conferences, seminars, courses of instruction, or similar
educational activities of the George C. Marshall European
Center for Security Studies for military officers and civilian
officials of cooperation partner states of the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council or the Partnership for Peace if the
Secretary determines that attendance by such personnel without
reimbursement is in the national security interest of the
United States. Costs for which reimbursement is waived pursuant
to this paragraph shall be paid from appropriations available
for the Center.
(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Defense may authorize participation by a European
or Eurasian nation in Marshall Center programs if the Secretary
determines, after consultation with the Secretary of State,
that such participation is in the national interest of the
United States.
(B) Not later than January 31 of each year, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the names of
the foreign nations permitted to participate in programs of the
Marshall Center during the preceding year under paragraph (1).
Each such report shall be prepared by the Secretary with the
assistance of the Director of the Marshall Center.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 9--DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 230. Amounts for declassification of records
The Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the
Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted
with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title
31) specific identification[, as a budgetary line item], of the
amounts required to carry out programmed activities during that
fiscal year to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order
No. 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note) or any successor Executive order
or to comply with any statutory requirement, or any request, to
declassify Government records. Identification of such amounts
in such budget justification materials shall be in a single
display that shows the total amount for the Department of
Defense and the amount for each military department and Defense
Agency.
* * * * * * *
PART II--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 483. Reports on transfers from high-priority readiness
appropriations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Matters To Be Included.--In each report under subsection
(a) or (b), the Secretary of Defense shall include for each
covered budget activity the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) A detailed explanation of the transfers into, and
out of, funds available for that activity during the
period covered by the report, including identification
of the sources from which funds were transferred into
that activity and identification of the recipients of
the funds transferred out of that activity.
(d) Covered Budget Activity Defined.--In this section, the
term ``covered budget activity'' means each of the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The Air Operations and Combat Related Operations
budget activity groups (known as ``subactivities'')
within the Operating Forces budget activity of the
annual Operation and Maintenance, Air Force,
appropriation that are designated as follows:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(G) Combat Enforcement Forces.
(H) Combat Communications.
* * * * * * *
[(e) Termination.--The requirements specified in subsections
(a) and (b) shall terminate upon the submission of the annual
report under subsection (a) covering fiscal year 2000.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 31--ENLISTMENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 517. Authorized daily average: members in pay grades E-8
and E-9
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President
may suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525,
or 526 of this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the
operation of any provision of this section. Any such suspension
shall, if not sooner ended, end in the manner specified in
section 527 for a suspension under that section.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--SELECTION BOARDS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 612. Composition of selection boards
(a)(1) Members of selection boards shall be appointed by the
Secretary of the military department concerned in accordance
with this section. A selection board shall consist of five or
more officers [who are on the active-duty list] of the same
armed force as the officers under consideration by the board.
Each member of a selection board (except as provided in
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)) shall be an officer on the
active-duty list. Each member of a selection board must be
serving in a grade higher than the grade of the officers under
consideration by the board, except that no member of a board
may be serving in a grade below major or lieutenant commander.
* * * * * * *
(3) When reserve officers of an armed force are to be
considered by a selection board, the membership of the board
shall include at least one reserve officer [of that armed
force, with the exact number of reserve officers to be] of that
armed force on active duty (whether or not on the active-duty
list). The actual number of reserve officers shall be
determined by the Secretary of the military department
concerned, in [his discretion, except that] the Secretary's
discretion. Notwithstanding the first sentence of this
paragraph, in the case of a board which is considering officers
in the grade of colonel or brigadier general or, in the case of
officers of the Navy, captain or rear admiral (lower half), no
reserve officer need be included if there are no reserve
officers of that armed force on active duty in the next higher
grade who are eligible to serve on the board.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT FOR
YEARS OF SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 628. Special selection boards
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Reports of Boards.--(1) * * *
(2) The provisions of sections 617(b) and 618 of this title
apply to the report and proceedings of a special selection
board convened under this section in the same manner as they
apply to the report and proceedings of a selection board
convened under section 611(a) of this title. However, in the
case of a board convened under this section to consider a
warrant officer or former warrant officer, the provisions of
sections 576(d) and 576(f ) of this title (rather than the
provisions of [section] sections 617(b) and 618 of this title)
apply to the report and proceedings of the board in the same
manner as they apply to the report and proceedings of a
selection board convened under section 573 of this title.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY AND SELECTIVE EARLY
RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 638a. Modification to rules for continuation on active duty;
enhanced authority for selective early retirement
and early discharges
(a) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a
military department, during the period beginning on October 1,
1990, and ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, to
take any of the actions set forth in subsection (b) with
respect to officers of an armed force under the jurisdiction of
that Secretary.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROMOTION, SEPARATION,
AND RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 641. Applicability of chapter
Officers in the following categories are not subject to this
chapter (other than section 640 and, in the case of warrant
officers, section 628):
(1) Reserve officers--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) on the reserve active-status list who are
on active duty under section 12301(d) of this
title, other than as provided in subparagraph
(C), under a call or order to active duty
specifying a period of three years or less;
[(D)] (E) on active duty to pursue special
work;
[(E)] (F) ordered to active duty under
section 12304 of this title;
[(F)] (G) on active duty under section
10(b)(2) of the Military Selective Service Act
(50 U.S.C. App. 460(b)(2)) for the
administration of the Selective Service System;
or
[(G)] (H) on full-time National Guard duty.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional
contingencies
(a) * * *
(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty
at the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the
following:
(1) For the Army, 480,000.
(2) For the Navy, [371,781] 372,000.
(3) For the Marine Corps, [172,148] 172,600.
(4) For the Air Force, [360,877] 357,000.
* * * * * * *
(e) For a fiscal year for which the active duty end strength
authorized by law pursuant to section 115(a)(1)(A) of this
title for any of the armed forces is identical to or greater
than the number applicable to that armed force under subsection
(b), the Secretary of Defense may reduce that number by not
more than 0.5 percent.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 40--LEAVE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 702. Cadets and midshipmen
(a) * * *
(b) Involuntary Leave Without Pay for Suspended
Academy Cadets and Midshipmen.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) A cadet or midshipman placed on involuntary leave under
paragraph (1) is not entitled to any pay under [section 230(c)]
section 203(c) of title 37 for the period of the leave.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 706. Administration of leave required to be taken pending review
of certain court-martial convictions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)[(1)] A member required to take leave under section 876a
of this title is not entitled to any right or benefit under
chapter 43 of title 38 solely because of employment during the
period of such leave.
[(2) Section 974 of this title does not apply to a member
required to take leave under section 876a of this title during
the period of such leave.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IX--POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 874. Art. 74. Remission and suspension
(a) The Secretary concerned and, when designated by him,
any Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Judge Advocate
General, or commanding officer may remit or suspend any part or
amount of the unexecuted part of any sentence, including all
uncollected forfeitures other than a sentence approved by the
President. However, in the case of a sentence of confinement
for life without eligibility for parole, after the sentence is
ordered executed, the authority of the Secretary concerned
under the preceding sentence (1) may not be delegated, and (2)
may be exercised only after the service of a period of
confinement of not less than 20 years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
Sec.
1031. Administration of oath.
* * * * * * *
1044d. Military testamentary instruments: requirement for recognition by
States.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1034. Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory
personnel actions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Inspector General Investigation of Allegations of
Prohibited Personnel Actions.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) An Inspector General receiving an allegation as
described in paragraph (1) shall expeditiously determine, in
accordance with regulations prescribed under subsection (h),
whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an
investigation of the allegation.
* * * * * * *
(i) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Member of Congress'' includes any
Delegate or Resident Commissioner to Congress.
(2) The term ``Inspector General'' means any of the
following:
(A) The Inspector General of the Department
of Defense.
* * * * * * *
[(C) The Inspector General of the Army, in
the case of a member of the Army.
[(D) The Naval Inspector General, in the case
of a member of the Navy.
[(E) The Inspector General of the Air Force,
in the case of a member of the Air Force.
[(F) The Deputy Naval Inspector General for
Marine Corps Matters, in the case of a member
of the Marine Corps.
[(G) An officer of the armed forces assigned
or detailed under regulations of the Secretary
concerned to serve as an Inspector General at
any command level in one of the armed forces.]
(C) Any officer of the armed forces or
employee of the Department of Defense who is
assigned or detailed to serve as an Inspector
General at any level in the Department of
Defense.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1044. Legal assistance
(a) Subject to the availability of legal staff resources,
the Secretary concerned may provide legal assistance in
connection with their personal civil legal affairs to the
following persons:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Members of a reserve component not covered by
paragraph (1) or (2), but only during a period,
following a release from active duty under a call or
order to active duty for more than 29 days under a
mobilization authority (as determined by the Secretary
of Defense), that is not in excess of twice the length
of time served on active duty.
[(4)] (5) Dependents of members and former members
described in paragraphs (1), (2), [and (3)] (3), and
(4).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1044d. Military testamentary instruments: requirement for
recognition by States
(a) Testamentary Instruments To Be Given Legal Effect.--A
military testamentary instrument--
(1) is exempt from any requirement of form,
formality, or recording before probate that is provided
for testamentary instruments under the laws of a State;
and
(2) has the same legal effect as a testamentary
instrument prepared and executed in accordance with the
laws of the State in which it is presented for probate.
(b) Military Testamentary Instruments.--For purposes of
this section, a military testamentary instrument is an
instrument that is prepared with testamentary intent in
accordance with regulations prescribed under this section and
that--
(1) is executed in accordance with subsection (c) by
(or on behalf of) a person, as a testator, who is
eligible for military legal assistance;
(2) makes a disposition of property of the testator;
and
(3) takes effect upon the death of the testator.
(c) Requirements for Execution of Military Testamentary
Instruments.--An instrument is valid as a military testamentary
instrument only if--
(1) the instrument is executed by the testator (or,
if the testator is unable to execute the instrument
personally, the instrument is executed in the presence
of, by the direction of, and on behalf of the
testator);
(2) the instrument is executed in the presence of a
military legal assistance counsel acting as presiding
attorney;
(3) the instrument is executed in the presence of at
least two disinterested witnesses (in addition to the
presiding attorney), each of whom attests to witnessing
the testator's execution of the instrument by signing
it; and
(4) the instrument is executed in accordance with
such additional requirements as may be provided in
regulations prescribed under this section.
(d) Self-Proving Military Testamentary Instruments.--(1) If
the document setting forth a military testamentary instrument
meets the requirements of paragraph (2), then the signature of
a person on the document as the testator, an attesting witness,
a notary, or the presiding attorney, together with a written
representation of the person's status as such and the person's
military grade (if any) or other title, is prima facie evidence
of the following:
(A) That the signature is genuine.
(B) That the signatory had the represented status and
title at the time of the execution of the will.
(C) That the signature was executed in compliance
with the procedures required under the regulations
prescribed under subsection (f).
(2) A document setting forth a military testamentary
instrument meets the requirements of this paragraph if it
includes (or has attached to it), in a form and content
required under the regulations prescribed under subsection (f),
each of the following:
(A) A certificate, executed by the testator, that
includes the testator's acknowledgment of the
testamentary instrument.
(B) An affidavit, executed by each witness signing
the testamentary instrument, that attests to the
circumstances under which the testamentary instrument
was executed.
(C) A notarization, including a certificate of any
administration of an oath required under the
regulations, that is signed by the notary or other
official administering the oath.
(e) Statement To Be Included.--(1) Under regulations
prescribed under this section, each military testamentary
instrument shall contain a statement that sets forth the
provisions of subsection (a).
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to make inapplicable
the provisions of subsection (a) to a testamentary instrument
that does not include a statement described in that paragraph.
(f) Regulations.--Regulations for the purposes of this
section shall be prescribed jointly by the Secretary of Defense
and by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the
Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the
Department of the Navy.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``person eligible for military legal
assistance'' means a person who is eligible for legal
assistance under section 1044 of this title.
(2) The term ``military legal assistance counsel''
means--
(A) a judge advocate (as defined in section
801(13) of this title); or
(B) a civilian attorney serving as a legal
assistance officer under the provisions of
section 1044 of this title.
(3) The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and each
possession of the United States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
Sec.
1071. Purpose of this chapter.
* * * * * * *
1074h. Medical and dental care: medal of honor recipients; dependents.
1074i. Reimbursement for certain travel expenses.
* * * * * * *
[1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles.]
1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles; reduction of
catastrophic cap.
* * * * * * *
1095f. TRICARE program: referrals for specialty health care.
* * * * * * *
1110. Policies and procedures for immunization program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1074. Medical and dental care for members and certain former
members
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) Funds appropriated to a military department, the
Department of Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a service in the Navy), or the
Department of Health and Human Services (with respect to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public
Health Service) may be used to provide medical and dental care
to persons entitled to such care by law or regulations,
including the provision of such care (other than elective
private treatment) in private facilities for members of the
[armed forces] uniformed services. If a private facility or
health care provider providing care under this subsection is a
health care provider under the Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Uniformed Services, the Secretary of Defense,
after consultation with the other administering Secretaries,
may by regulation require the private facility or health care
provider to provide such care in accordance with the same
payment rules (subject to any modifications considered
appropriate by the Secretary) as apply under that program.
(2)(A) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of
Defense considers necessary, coverage for medical care for
members of the [armed forces] uniformed services under this
subsection, and standards with respect to timely access to such
care, shall be comparable to coverage for medical care and
standards for timely access to such care under the managed care
option of the TRICARE program known as TRICARE Prime.
* * * * * * *
(C) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the
other administering Secretaries in the administration
of this paragraph.
(3)(A) [The Secretary of Defense may not require a member
of the armed forces described in subparagraph (B)] A member of
the uniformed services described in subparagraph (B) may not be
required to receive routine primary medical care at a military
medical treatment facility.
(B) A member referred to in subparagraph (A) is a member of
the [armed forces] uniformed services on active duty who is
entitled to medical care under this subsection and who--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1074g. Pharmacy benefits program
(a) Pharmacy Benefits.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) The Secretary, [as part of the regulations established]
in the regulations prescribed under subsection (g), may
establish cost sharing requirements (which may be established
as a percentage or fixed dollar amount) under the pharmacy
benefits program for generic, formulary, and nonformulary
agents. For nonformulary agents, cost sharing shall be
consistent with common industry practice and not in excess of
amounts generally comparable to 20 percent for beneficiaries
covered by section 1079 of this title or 25 percent for
beneficiaries covered by section 1086 of this title.
(7) The Secretary shall establish procedures for eligible
covered beneficiaries to receive pharmaceutical agents [not
included on the uniform formulary, but,] that are not included
on the uniform formulary but that are considered to be
clinically necessary. Such procedures shall include peer review
procedures under which the Secretary may determine that there
is a clinical justification for the use of a pharmaceutical
agent that is not on the uniform formulary, in which case the
pharmaceutical agent shall be provided under the same terms and
conditions as an agent on the uniform formulary. Such
procedures shall also include an expeditious appeals process
for an eligible covered beneficiary, or a network or uniformed
provider on behalf of the beneficiary, to establish clinical
justification for the use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not
on the uniform formulary.
* * * * * * *
(b) Establishment of Committee.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of the
military departments, establish a Pharmacy and Therapeutics
Committee for the purpose of developing the uniform formulary
of pharmaceutical agents required by subsection (a), reviewing
such formulary on a periodic basis, and making additional
recommendations regarding the formulary as the committee
determines necessary and appropriate. The committee shall
include representatives of pharmacies of the uniformed services
facilities, contractors responsible for the TRICARE retail
pharmacy program, contractors responsible for the national
mail-order pharmacy program, providers in facilities of the
uniformed services, and TRICARE network providers. Committee
members shall have expertise in treating the medical needs of
the populations served through such entities and in the range
of pharmaceutical and biological medicines available for
treating such populations. The committee shall function under
procedures established by the Secretary under the regulations
required by subsection (g).
* * * * * * *
(d) Procedures.--(1) * * *
(2) [Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall utilize]
Effective not later than April 5, 2000, the Secretary shall use
a modification to the bid price adjustment methodology in the
current managed care support contracts to ensure equitable and
timely reimbursement to the TRICARE managed care support
contractors for pharmaceutical products delivered in the
nonmilitary environments. The methodology shall take into
account the ``at-risk'' nature of the contracts as well as
managed care support contractor pharmacy costs attributable to
changes to pharmacy service or formulary management at military
medical treatment facilities, and other military activities and
policies that affect costs of pharmacy benefits provided
through the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services. The methodology shall also account for
military treatment facility costs attributable to the delivery
of pharmaceutical productsin the military facility environment
which were prescribed by a network provider.
* * * * * * *
(e) Pharmacy Data Transaction Service.--[Not later than
April 1, 2000, the] The Secretary of Defense shall implement
the use of the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service in all fixed
facilities of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary, in the TRICARE retail pharmacy program, and in
the national mail-order pharmacy program.
(f) Definitions.--[As used in this section--] In this
section:
(1) [the] The term ``eligible covered beneficiary''
means a covered beneficiary for whom eligibility to
receive pharmacy benefits through the means described
in subsection (a)(2)(E) is established under this
chapter or another provision of law[; and].
(2) [the] The term ``pharmaceutical agent'' means
drugs, biological products, and medical devices under
the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug
Administration.
(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, after
consultation with the other administering Secretaries,
[promulgate] prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1074h. Medical and dental care: medal of honor recipients;
dependents
(a) Medal of Honor Recipients.--A former member of the
armed forces who is a Medal of Honor recipient and who is not
otherwise entitled to medical and dental benefits under this
chapter may, upon request, be given medical and dental care
provided by the administering Secretaries in the same manner as
if entitled to retired pay.
(b) Dependents.--A person who is a dependent of a Medal of
Honor recipient and who is not otherwise entitled to medical
and dental benefits under this chapter may, upon request, be
given medical and dental care provided by the administering
Secretaries in the same manner as if the Medal of Honor
recipient were, or (if deceased) was at the time of death,
entitled to retired pay.
(c) Definitions--In this section:
(1) The term ``Medal of Honor recipient'' means a
member or former member of the armed forces who has
been awarded a medal of honor under section 3741, 6241,
or 8741 of this title or section 491 of title 14.
(2) The term ``dependent'' has the meaning given that
term in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section
1072(2) of this title.
Sec. 1074i. Reimbursement for certain travel expenses
In any case in which a covered beneficiary is referred by a
primary care physician to a specialty care provider who
provides services more than 100 miles from the location in
which the primary care provider provides services to the
covered beneficiary, the Secretary shall provide reimbursement
for reasonable travel expenses for the covered beneficiary.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1076c. Dental insurance plan: certain retirees and their surviving
spouses and other dependents
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Disenrollment Process for TRICARE Retiree Dental
Program.--With respect to the provision of dental care to a
retired member of the uniformed services or the dependent of
such a member under the TRICARE program, the Secretary of
Defense--
(A) shall require that any TRICARE dental insurance
contract allow for a period of up to 30 days, beginning
on the date of the submission of an application for
enrollment by the member or dependent, during which the
member or dependent may disenroll;
(B) shall provide for limited circumstances under
which disenrollment shall be permitted during the 24-
month initial enrollment period, without jeopardizing
the fiscal integrity of the dental program.
(2) The circumstances described in paragraph (1)(B) shall
include--
(A) a case in which a retired member or dependent who
is also a Federal employee is assigned to a location
overseas which prevents utilization of dental benefits
in the United States;
(B) a case in which such a member or dependent
provides medical documentation with regard to a
diagnosis of a serious or terminal illness which
precludes the member or dependent from obtaining dental
care;
(C) a case in which severe financial hardship would
result; and
(D) any other instances which the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) A retired member or dependent described in paragraph
(1)--
(A) shall make any initial requests for disenrollment
under this subsection to the TRICARE dental insurance
contractor; and
(B) may appeal a decision by the contractor, or
policies with respect to the provision of dental care
to retirees and their dependents under the TRICARE
program, to the TRICARE Management Activity.
(4) In a case of an appeal described in paragraph (3)(B)
the contractor shall refer all relevant information collected
by the contractor to the TRICARE Management Activity.
[(i)] (j) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``eligible dependent'' means a dependent
described in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section
1072(2) of this title.
(2) The term ``eligible child dependent'' means a
dependent described in subparagraph (D) or (I) of
section 1072(2) of this title.
(3) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: plans
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(17)(A) The Secretary of Defense may establish a
program for the individual case management of a person
covered by this section or section 1086 of this title
who has extraordinary medical or psychological
disorders and, under such a program, may waive benefit
limitations contained in paragraphs (5) and (13) of
this subsection or section 1077(b)(1) of this title and
authorize the payment for comprehensive home health
care services, supplies, and equipment if the Secretary
determines that such a waiver is cost-effective and
appropriate.
(B) The total amount expended under subparagraph (A)
for a fiscal year may not exceed $100,000,000.
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) To assure access to care for all covered beneficiaries,
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other
administering Secretaries, shall designate specific rates for
reimbursement for services in certain localities if the
Secretary determines that without payment of such rates access
to health care services would be severely impaired. Such a
determination shall be based on consideration of the number of
providers in a locality who provide the services, the number of
such providers who are CHAMPUS participating providers, the
number of covered beneficiaries under CHAMPUS in the locality,
the availability of military providers in the location or a
nearby location, and any other factors determined to be
relevant by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
(p)(1) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of
Defense considers necessary, coverage for medical care under
this section for the dependents referred to in subsection (a)
of a member of the uniformed services referred to in section
1074(c)(3) of this title who are residing with the member, and
standards with respect to timely access to such care, shall be
comparable to coverage for medical care and standards for
timely access to such care under the managed care option of the
TRICARE program known as TRICARE Prime.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall enter into arrangements
with contractors under the TRICARE program or with other
appropriate contractors for the timely and efficient processing
of claims under this subsection.
(3) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the other
administering Secretaries in the administration of this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1091. Personal services contracts
(a) Authority.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of
Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy, may also enter into
personal services contracts to carry out other health care
responsibilities of the Secretary (such as the provision of
medical screening examinations at Military Entrance Processing
Stations) at locations outside medical treatment facilities, as
determined necessary pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary. The Secretary may not enter into a contract under
this paragraph after [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2002.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles]
Sec. 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles; reduction
of catastrophic cap
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Reduction of Catastrophic Cap.--The Secretary shall
reduce the catastrophic cap for covered beneficiaries under
TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra to $3,000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1095f. TRICARE program: referrals for specialty health care
The Secretary of Defense shall provide that no contract for
managed care support under the TRICARE program shall require a
managed care support contractor to require a primary care
provider or specialty care provider to obtain prior
authorization before referring a patient to a specialty care
provider that is part of the network of health care providers
or institutions of the contractor.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1097a. TRICARE Prime: automatic enrollments; payment options
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No Copayment for Immediate Family.--No copayment shall be
charged a member for care provided under TRICARE Prime to a
dependent of a member of the uniformed services described in
subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title.
[(e)] (f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``TRICARE Prime'' means the managed care
option of the TRICARE program.
(2) The term ``catchment area'', with respect to a
facility of a uniformed service, means the service area
of the facility, as designated under regulations
prescribed by the administering Secretaries.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health
Benefits program: demonstration project
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Area of Demonstration Project.--The Secretary of Defense
and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall
jointly identify and select the geographic areas in which the
demonstration project will be conducted. The Secretary and the
Director shall establish at least six, [but not more than ten,]
such demonstration areas. [In establishing the areas, the
Secretary and Director shall include--
[(1) an area that includes the catchment area of one
or more military medical treatment facilities;
[(2) an area that is not located in the catchment
area of a military medical treatment facility;
[(3) an area in which there is a Medicare Subvention
Demonstration project area under section 1896 of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg);
and
[(4) not more than one area for each TRICARE region.]
In establishing the areas, the Secretary and the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management shall include an area that
includes the catchment area of one or more military medical
treatment facilities, an area that is not located in the
catchment area of a military medical treatment facility, an
area in which there is a Medicare Subvention Demonstration
project area under section 1896 of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg), and one area for each TRICARE
region.
(d) Duration of Demonstration Project.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall conduct the demonstration project during [three]
four contract years under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
program.
(2) Eligible beneficiaries shall, as provided under the
agreement pursuant to subsection (a), be permitted to enroll in
the demonstration project during an open enrollment period for
the year 2000 (conducted in the fall of 1999). The
demonstration project shall terminate on [December 31, 2002]
December 31, 2003.
* * * * * * *
(f ) Term of Enrollment in Project.--(1) Subject to
paragraphs (2) and (3), the period of enrollment of an eligible
beneficiary who enrolls in the demonstration project during the
open enrollment period for the year 2000 shall be [three] four
years unless the beneficiary disenrolls before the termination
of the project.
* * * * * * *
(k) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than [December 31,
2002] December 31, 2003, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report addressing the same matters required to be
addressed under subsection ( j)(2). The report shall
describeany limitations with respect to the data contained in the
report as a result of the size and design of the demonstration project.
(l) Application of Medigap Protections to Demonstration
Project Enrollees.--(1) * * *
(2) In applying paragraph (1)--
(A) any reference in clause (v) or (vi) of section
1882(s)(3)(B) of such Act to 12 months is deemed a
reference to [36] 48 months; and
(B) the notification required under section
1882(s)(3)(D) of such Act shall be provided in a manner
specified by the Secretary of Defense in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management.
* * * * * * *
(m) Expansion of Coverage for Retirees Over Age 65.--(1)
Eligible beneficiaries referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall
be permitted to enroll, or to extend a previous enrollment
entered into under subsection (d)(2), during a period of open
enrollment for the year 2003 (conducted in the fall of 2002).
(2) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (f), the
period of enrollment, or extension of enrollment, of an
eligible beneficiary under paragraph (1) shall be one year
unless the beneficiary disenrolls before the termination of the
demonstration project.
Sec. 1109. Organ and tissue donor program
(a) * * *
(b) Responsibilities of the Secretaries of the Military
Departments.--[(1)] The Secretaries of the military departments
shall ensure that--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1110. Policies and procedures for immunization program
(a) System and Procedures for Tracking Separations.--(1) The
Secretary of each military department shall establish a system
for tracking, recording, and reporting separations of members
of the armed forces that result from procedures initiated as a
result of a refusal to participate in the anthrax vaccine
immunization program.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall consolidate the
information recorded under the system described in paragraph
(1) and shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives and the Senate on an annual basis a
report on such information. Such reports shall include a
description of--
(A) the number of personnel separated, categorized by
military department, rank, and active-duty or reserve
status; and
(B) any other information determined appropriate by
the Secretary.
(b) Emergency Essential Civilian Personnel.--The Secretary of
Defense shall--
(1) prescribe regulations for the purpose of ensuring
that any civilian employee of the Department of Defense
who is determined to be an emergency essential employee
and who is required to participate in the anthrax
vaccination program is notified of the requirement to
participate in the program and the consequences of a
decision not to participate; and
(2) ensure that any individual who is being
considered for a position as such an employee is
notified of the obligation to participate in the
program before being offered employment in such
position.
(c) Procedures for Medical and Administrative Exemptions.--
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish uniform procedures
under which members of the armed forces may be exempted from
participating in the anthrax vaccination program for either
administrative or medical reasons.
(2) The Secretaries of the military departments shall provide
for notification of all members of the armed forces of the
procedures described in paragraph (1).
(d) System for Monitoring Adverse Reactions.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall establish a system for monitoring
adverse reactions of members of the armed forces to the anthrax
vaccine which shall include the following:
(A) Independent review of Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System reports.
(B) Periodic surveys of personnel to whom the vaccine
is administered.
(C) A continuing longitudinal study of a pre-
identified group of members of the armed forces
(including men and women and members from all
services).
(D) Active surveillance of a sample of members to
whom the anthrax vaccine has been administered that is
sufficient to identify, at the earliest opportunity,
any patterns of adverse reactions, the discovery of
which might be delayed by reliance solely on the
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
(2) The Secretary may extend or expand any ongoing or planned
study or analysis of trends in adverse reactions of members of
the armed forces to the anthrax vaccine in order to meet any of
the requirements in paragraph (1).
(3) The Secretary shall establish guidelines under which
members of the armed forces who are determined by an
independent expert panel to be experiencing unexplained adverse
reactions may obtain access to a Department of Defense Center
of Excellence treatment facility for expedited treatment and
follow up.
(e) Vaccine Development and Procurement.--(1) The Secretary
of Defense shall develop a plan, including milestones, for
modernizing all vaccines used or anticipated to be used as part
of the protection strategy for members of the armed forces.
(2) The Secretary--
(A) shall, to the maximum extent possible, be the
sole purchaser of a vaccine to immunize members of the
armed forces and employees of all Federal agencies;
(B) shall, to the maximum extent possible, procure
such a vaccine from more than one manufacturer; and
(C) in any case in which the Secretary determines
that sole source procurement of such a vaccine is
necessary, may not enter into a contract to purchase
such vaccine until 30 days after providing notification
to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that the Secretary
intends to enter into a sole source contract for the vaccine.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 58--BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS BEING SEPARATED OR
RECENTLY SEPARATED
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1145. Health benefits
(a) Transitional Health Care.--(1) For the applicable time
period described in paragraph (2), a member of the armed forces
who is involuntarily separated from active duty during the
period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on [September
30, 2001] December 31, 2001 (and the dependents of the member),
shall be entitled to receive--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Health Care for Certain Separated Members Not Otherwise
Eligible.--(1) Consistent with the authority of the Secretary
concerned to designate certain classes of persons as eligible
to receive health care at a military medical facility, the
Secretary concerned should consider authorizing, on an
individual basis in cases of hardship, the provision of that
care for a member who is separated from the armed forces during
the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on
[September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, and is ineligible for
transitional health care under subsection (a) or does not
obtain a conversion health policy (or a dependent of the
member).
* * * * * * *
(e) Coast Guard.--The provisions of this section shall apply
to members of the Coast Guard (and their dependents)
involuntarily separated from active duty during the period
beginning on October 1, 1994, and ending on [September 30,
2001] December 31, 2001. The Secretary of Transportation shall
implement this section for the Coast Guard.
Sec. 1146. Commissary and exchange benefits
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to allow
a member of the armed forces who is involuntarily separated
from active duty during the period beginning on October 1,
1990, and ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, to
continue to use commissary and exchange stores during the two-
year period beginning on the date of the involuntary separation
of the member in the same manner as a member on active duty.
The Secretary of Transportation shall implement this provision
for Coast Guard members involuntarily separated during the
period beginning on October 1, 1994, and ending on [September
30, 2001] December 31, 2001.
Sec. 1147. Use of military family housing
(a) Transition for Involuntarily Separated Members.--(1) The
Secretary of a military department may, pursuant to regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, permit individuals who
are involuntarily separated during the period beginning on
October 1, 1990, and ending on [September 30, 2001] December
31, 2001, to continue for not more than 180 days after the date
of such separation to reside (along with other members of the
individual's household) in military family housing provided or
leased by the Department of Defense to such individual as a
member of the armed forces.
(2) The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe regulations
to permit members of the Coast Guard who are involuntarily
separated thereof ``during the period beginning on October 1,
1994, and ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, to
continue for not more than 180 days after the date of such
separation to reside (along with others of the member's
household) in military family housing provided or leased by the
Coast Guard to the individual as a member of the armed forces.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1150. Affiliation with Guard and Reserve units: waiver of certain
limitations
(a) Preference for Certain Persons.--A person who is
separated from the armed forces during the period beginning on
October 1, 1990, and ending on [September 30, 2001] December
31, 2001, and who applies to become a member of a National
Guard or Reserve unit within one year after the date of such
separation shall be given preference over other equally
qualified applicants for existing or projected vacancies within
the unit to which the member applies.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 59--SEPARATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1174. Separation pay upon involuntary discharge or release from
active duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Other Members.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The discharge or release from active duty of an officer
under a law or regulation requiring that an officer who has
failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade for
the second time, or who declines continuation on active duty
after such a failure, be discharged or released from active
duty shall be considered to be involuntary for purposes of
paragraph (1)(A).
Sec. 1174a. Special separation benefits programs
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Termination of Program.--(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), the Secretary concerned may not conduct a
programpursuant to this section after [September 30, 2001]
December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1175. Voluntary separation incentive
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) After [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, the
Secretary may not approve a request.
(e)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) A member who has received the voluntary separation
incentive and who qualifies for retired or retainer pay under
this title shall have deducted from each payment of such
retired or retainer pay so much of such pay as is based on the
service for which he received the voluntary separation
incentive until the total amount deducted equals the total
amount of voluntary separation incentive received. If the
member elected to have a reduction in voluntary separation
incentive for any period pursuant to paragraph (2), the
deduction required under the preceding sentence shall be
reduced accordingly.
(B) If a member is receiving simultaneous voluntary
separation incentive payments and retired or retainer pay, the
member may elect to terminate the receipt of voluntary
separation incentive payments. Any such election is permanent
and irrevocable. The rate of monthly recoupment from retired or
retainer pay of voluntary separation incentive payments
received after such an election shall be reduced by a
percentage that is equal to a fraction with a denominator equal
to the number of months that the voluntary separation incentive
payments were scheduled to be paid and a numerator equal to the
number of months that would not be paid as a result of the
member's decision to terminate the voluntary separation
incentive.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 69--RETIRED GRADE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions
(a) Rule for Retirement in Highest Grade Held
Satisfactorily.--(1) * * *
(2)(A) In order to be eligible for voluntary retirement under
any provision of this title in a grade above major or
lieutenant commander, a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, or Marine Corps must have served on active duty in
that grade for not less than three years, except that the
Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a military
department to reduce such period to a period not less than two
years in the case of retirements effective during the period
beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on [September 30,
2001] December 31, 2001.
(d) Reserve Officers.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a
military department to reduce the 3-year period required by
paragraph (3)(A) to a period not less than 2 years in the case
of retirements effective during the period beginning on October
17, 1998, and ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001.
The number of reserve commissioned officers of an armed force
in the same grade for whom a reduction is made during any
fiscal year in the period of service-in-grade otherwise
required under this paragraph may not exceed the number equal
to 2 percent of the strength authorized for that fiscal year
for reserve commissioned officers of that armed force in an
active status in that grade.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1448. Application of Plan
(a) General Rules for Participation in the Plan.--
(1) * * *
(2) Participants in the plan.--The Plan applies to
the following persons, who shall be participants in the
Plan:
(A) * * *
[(B) Reserve-component annuity
participants.--A person who (i) is eligible to
participate in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B),
(ii) is married or has a dependent child when
he is notified under section 12731(d) of this
title that he has completed the years of
service required for eligibility for reserve-
component retired pay, and (iii) elects to
participate in the Plan (and makes a
designation under subsection (e)) before the
end of the 90-day period beginning on the date
he receives such notification.]
(B) Reserve-component annuity participants.--
A person who (i) is eligible to participate in
the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), and (ii) is
married or has a dependent child when he is
notified under section 12731(d) of this title
that he has completed the years of service
required for eligibility for reserve-component
retired pay, unless the person elects (with his
spouse's concurrence, if required under
paragraph (3)) not to participate in the Plan
before the end of the 90-day period beginning
on the date on which he receives that
notification.
A person [described in clauses (i) and (ii) of
subparagraph (B) who does not elect to participate in
the Plan before the end of the 90-day period referred
to in that clause] who elects under subparagraph (B) not
to participate in the Plan remains eligible, upon reaching
60 years of age and otherwise becoming entitled to retired
pay, to participate in the Plan in accordance with eligibility
under paragraph (1)(A).
(3) Elections.--
(A) * * *
(B) Spousal consent for certain elections
respecting reserve-component annuity.--A
married person [who elects to provide] who is
eligible to provide a reserve-component annuity
may not without the concurrence of the person's
spouse elect--
(i) not to participate in the Plan;
(ii) to designate under subsection
(e)(2) the effective date for
commencement of annuity payments under
the Plan in the event that the member
dies before becoming 60 years of age to
be the 60th anniversary of the member's
birth (rather than the day after the
date of the member's death);
[(i)] (iii) to provide an annuity for
the person's spouse at less than the
maximum level; or
[(ii)] (iv) to provide an annuity for
a dependent child but not for the
person's spouse.
(4) Irrevocability of elections.--
(A) Standard annuity.--An election under
paragraph (2)(A) [not to participate in the
Plan] is irrevocable if not revoked before the
date on which the person first becomes entitled
to retired pay.
(B) Reserve-component annuity.--An election
under paragraph (2)(B) [to participate in the
Plan] is irrevocable if not revoked before the
end of the 90-day period referred to in that
paragraph.
* * * * * * *
(b) Insurable Interest and Former Spouse Coverage.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Former spouse coverage by persons already
participating in plan.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Effective date of election.--An election
under this paragraph is effective as of--
(i) * * *
(ii) in the case of a person required
(as described in section 1450(f )(3)(B)
of this title) to make the election by
reason of a court order or filing the
date of which is after October 16,
1998,[,] the first day of the first
month which begins after the date of
that court order or filing.
* * * * * * *
(e) Designation for Commencement of Reserve-Component
Annuity.--In any case in which a person electing to participate
in the Plan is required to make a designation under this
subsection, the person [making such election] shall designate
whether, in the event he dies before becoming 60 years of age,
the annuity provided shall become effective on--
(1) the day after the date of his death; or
(2) the 60th anniversary of his birth.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 77--POSTHUMOUS COMMISSIONS AND WARRANTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1521. Posthumous commissions
(a) The President may issue, or have issued, an appropriate
commission in the name of a member of the armed forces who,
after September 8, 1939--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) was officially recommended for appointment or
promotion to a commissioned grade [and the
recommendation for whose appointment or promotion was
approved by the Secretary concerned] but was unable to
accept the promotion or appointment because of death in
line of duty.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 80--MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DUTIES
Sec.
1561. Complaints of sexual harassment: investigation by commanding
officers.
* * * * * * *
1563. Consideration of proposals for posthumous and honorary promotions
and appointments: procedures for review and recommendation.
1564. Military criminal investigations: probable cause required for
entry of names of subjects into official investigative
reports.
1565. DNA identification information: collection from violent and sexual
offenders; use.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1563. Consideration of proposals for posthumous and honorary
promotions and appointments: procedures for review
and recommendation
(a) Review by Secretary Concerned.--Upon request of a Member
of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal
for the posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment of a
member or former member of the armed forces, or any other
person considered qualified, that is not otherwise authorized
by law. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall make a
determination as to the merits of approving the posthumous or
honorary promotion or appointment and the other determinations
necessary to comply with subsection (b).
(b) Notice of Results of Review.--Upon making a determination
under subsection (a) as to the merits of approving the
posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment, the
Secretaryconcerned shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and to the requesting Member of Congress notice in
writing of one of the following:
(1) The posthumous or honorary promotion or
appointment does not warrant approval on the merits.
(2) The posthumous or honorary promotion or
appointment warrants approval and authorization by law
for the promotion or appointment is recommended.
(3) The posthumous or honorary promotion or
appointment warrants approval on the merits and has
been recommended to the President as an exception to
policy.
(4) The posthumous or honorary promotion or
appointment warrants approval on the merits and
authorization by law for the promotion or appointment
is required but is not recommended.
A notice under paragraph (1) or (4) shall be accompanied by a
statement of the reasons for the decision of the Secretary.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Member of
Congress'' means--
(1) a Senator; or
(2) a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, Congress.
Sec. 1564. Military criminal investigations: probable cause required
for entry of names of subjects into official
investigative reports
(a) Probable Cause Required for ``Titling''.--The Secretary
of Defense shall require that an employee of a military
criminal investigative organization or a member of the armed
forces assigned to a military criminal investigative
organization, in connection with the investigation of a
reported crime, may not designate any person, by name or by any
other identifying information, as a suspect in the case in any
official investigative report, or in a central index for
potential retrieval and analysis by law enforcement
organizations, unless there is probable cause to believe that
that person committed the crime.
(b) Standard for Removal of ``Titling'' Information From
Records.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish a uniform
standard applicable throughout the Department of Defense for
removal from an official investigative report of a reported
crime, and from any applicable central index, of the name of a
person (and any other identifying information about that
person) that was entered in the report or index to designate
that person as a suspect in the case when it is subsequently
determined that there is not probable cause to believe that
that person committed the crime.
(c) Criminal Investigative Organization Defined.--In this
section, the term ``criminal investigative organization'' means
any of the following:
(1) The Defense Criminal Investigative Service (or
any successor to that service).
(2) The Army Criminal Investigation Command (or any
successor to that command).
(3) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (or any
successor to that service).
(4) The Air Force Office of Special Investigations
(or any successor to that office).
Sec. 1565. DNA identification information: collection from violent and
sexual offenders; use
(a) Collection of DNA Samples.--The Secretary concerned shall
collect a DNA sample from each member of the armed forces under
the Secretary's jurisdiction who is, or has been, convicted of
a qualifying military offense (as determined under subsection
(e)).
(b) Analysis of Samples.--The Secretary concerned shall
furnish each DNA sample collected under subsection (a) to the
Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall carry out
a DNA analysis on each such DNA sample.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``DNA sample'' means a tissue, fluid, or
other bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA
analysis can be carried out.
(2) The term ``DNA analysis'' means analysis of the
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification information
in a bodily sample.
(d) Use in CODIS.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall furnish
the results of each DNA analysis carried out under subsection
(b) to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for
use in the Combined DNA Index System (in this section referred
to as ``CODIS'') of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(2) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall
establish procedures providing that if a DNA sample has been
collected from a person pursuant to subsection (a), and the
Secretary receives notice that each conviction of that person
of a qualifying military offense has been overturned, the
Secretary shall promptly transmit a notice of that fact to the
Director in accordance with section 210304(d) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
(e) Qualifying Military Offenses.--(1) Subject to paragraph
(2), the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Attorney General, shall determine those violent or sexual
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that shall
be considered for purposes of this section as qualifying
military offenses.
(2) An offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
that is equivalent to a serious violent felony (as that term is
defined in section 3559(c)(2)(F) of title 18), as determined by
the Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General, shall
be considered for purposes of this section as a qualifying
military offense.
(f) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the
requirement of subsection (a) for a member if CODIS contains a
DNA analysis with respect to that member.
(g) Regulations.--This section shall be carried out under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the
Attorney General. Those regulations shall apply, to the extent
practicable, uniformly throughout the armed forces.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 83--CIVILIAN DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--DEFENSE-WIDE INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1601. Civilian intelligence personnel: general authority to
establish excepted positions, appoint personnel,
and fix rates of pay
(a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may--
(1) establish, as positions in the excepted service,
such defense intelligence positions [in the
intelligence components of the Department of Defense
and the military departments] in the Department of
Defense as the Secretary determines necessary to carry
out the intelligence functions [of those components and
departments] of the Department, including--
(A) Intelligence Senior Level positions
designated under section 1607 of this title;
and
(B) positions in the Defense Intelligence
Senior Executive Service;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1611. Postemployment assistance: certain terminated intelligence
employees
(a) Authority.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of
Defense may, in the case of any individual who is a qualified
former intelligence employee, use appropriated funds--
(1) to assist that individual in finding and
qualifying for employment other than in an
[intelligence component of the Department of Defense]
defense intelligence position;
* * * * * * *
(b) Qualified Former Intelligence Employees.--For purposes of
this section, a qualified former intelligence employee is an
individual who was employed as a civilian employee of the
Department of Defense in a [sensitive position in an
intelligence component of the Department of Defense] sensitive
defense intelligence position--
(1) who has been found to be ineligible for continued
access to information designated as ``Sensitive
Compartmented Information'' and employment [with the
intelligence component] in a defense intelligence
position; or
(2) whose employment [with the intelligence
component] in a defense intelligence position has been
terminated.
* * * * * * *
(d) Duration of Assistance.--Assistance may not be provided
under this section in the case of any individual after the end
of the five-year period beginning on the date of the
termination of the employment of the individual with [an
intelligence component of the Department of Defense] in a
defense intelligence position.
* * * * * * *
[(f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``intelligence
component of the Department of Defense'' includes the National
Reconnaissance Office and any intelligence component of a
military department.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1614. Definitions
In this subchapter:
(1) The term ``defense intelligence position'' means
a civilian position as an intelligence officer or
intelligence employee [of an intelligence component of
the Department of Defense or of a military department]
of the Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 102--JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2033. Contingent funding increase
If for any fiscal year the amount [appropriated for]
appropriated directly to the Secretary of Defense for the
National Guard Challenge Program under section 509 of title 32
is in excess of $62,500,000, the Secretary of Defense shall
(notwithstanding any other provision of law) make the amount in
excess of $62,500,000 available for the Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps program under section 2031 of this
title, and such excess amount may not be used for any other
purpose.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates
(a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and
ending on [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2001, executes a
written agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept
an appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of
the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned
at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first
installment may not exceed $2,500.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 108--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS
Sec.
2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: academic degrees.
* * * * * * *
2166. Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2164. Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and
secondary schools
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Eligibility of Dependents of Federal Employees and Other
Persons.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) The Secretary may authorize the dependent of an
American Red Cross employee described in subparagraph (B) to
enroll in an education program provided by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (a) if the American Red Cross agrees to
reimburse the Secretary for the educational services so
provided.
(B) An employee referred to in subparagraph (A) is an
American Red Cross employee who--
(i) resides in Puerto Rico; and
(ii) performs, on a full-time basis, emergency
services on behalf of members of the armed forces.
(C) Amounts received under this paragraph as reimbursement
for educational services shall be treated in the same manner as
amounts received under subsection (g).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2165. National Defense University: component institutions
(a) * * *
(b) Component Institutions.--The National Defense University
consists of the following institutions:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The [Armed Forces Staff College] Joint Forces
Staff College.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2166. Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may operate an
education and training facility known as the ``Defense
Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation''. The Secretary
of Defense may designate the Secretary of the Army as the
Department of Defense executive agent for carrying out the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense under this
section.
(b) Purpose.--(1) The Institute shall be operated for the
purpose of providing education and training to military, law
enforcement, and civilian personnel of nations of the Western
Hemisphere in defense and security matters.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), defense and security
matters include--
(A) professional military education;
(B) leadership development;
(C) counter-drug operations;
(D) peace support operations; and
(E) disaster relief.
(c) Curriculum.--The education and training programs provided
by the Institute shall include (for each person attending the
Institute under subsection (b)) instruction totaling not less
than eight hours relating to each of the following subjects:
(1) Human rights.
(2) The rule of law.
(3) Due process.
(4) Civilian control of the military.
(5) The role of the military in a democratic society.
(d) Board of Visitors.--(1) There is a Board of Visitors for
the Institute. The Board shall be composed of members appointed
by the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of the Army as
the Secretary's designee). In selecting members of the Board,
the Secretary shall consider recommendations by--
(A) the Speaker and the minority leader of the House
of Representatives;
(B) the majority leader and the minority leader of
the Senate;
(C) the Secretary of State;
(D) the commander of the unified command with
geographic responsibility for Latin America; and
(E) representatives from academic institutions,
religious institutions, and human rights organizations.
(2) Members shall serve for two years and shall meet at least
annually.
(3)(A) The Board shall inquire into--
(i) the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment,
fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters
relating to the Institute that the Board decides to
consider; and
(ii) any other matters relating to the Institute that
the Secretary considers appropriate.
(B) The Board shall review the curriculum of the Institute to
ensure that the curriculum--
(i) complies with applicable United States law and
regulations;
(ii) is consistent with United States policy goals
toward Latin America and the Caribbean; and
(iii) adheres to current United States doctrine.
(4)(A) Not later than 60 days after its annual meeting, the
Board shall submit to the Secretary a written report of its
action and of its views and recommendations pertaining to the
Institute.
(B) Within 30 days of receipt of the Board's report for any
year, the Secretary shall transmit the report, with the
Secretary's comments, to Congress.
(5) While performing duties as a member of or adviser to the
Board, each member of the Board and each adviser shall be
reimbursed for travel expenses under Government travel
regulations. Board members shall not be compensated by reason
of service on the Board.
(e) Source of Funds.--The fixed costs of operating and
maintaining the Institute may be paid from funds available for
operation and maintenance.
(f) Tuition.--Tuition fees charged for persons who attend the
Institute may not include the fixed costs of operating and
maintaining the Institute.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2218. National Defense Sealift Fund
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(k) Contracts for Incorporation of Defense Features in
Commercial Vessels.--(1) The head of an agency may enter into a
contract with a company submitting an offer for that company to
install and maintain defense features for national defense
purposes in one or more commercial vessels owned or controlled
by that company in accordance with the purpose for which funds
in the National Defense Sealift Fund are available under
subsection (c)(1)(C). The head of the agency may enter into
such a contract only after the head of the agency makes a
determination of the economic soundness of the offer. As
consideration for a contract with the Secretary of Defense or
the Secretary of a military department under this subsection,
the company entering into the contract shall agree with the
Secretary to make any vessel covered by the contract available
to the Secretary, fully crewed and ready for sea, at any time
at any port determined by the Secretary, and for whatever
duration the Secretary determines necessary.
(2) The head of an agency may make advance payments to the
contractor under a contract under paragraph (1) in a lump sum,
in annual payments, or in a combination thereof for costs
associated with the installation and maintenance of the defense
features on a vessel covered by the contract, as follows:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Payments of such sums as the Government would
otherwise expend, if the vessel were placed in the
Ready Reserve Fleet, for maintaining the vessel in the
status designated as `ROS-4 status' in the Ready
Reserve Fleet for 25 years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 136--PROVISIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS
Sec.
2281. Global Positioning System.
2282. B-2 bomber: annual report on operational status.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2282. B-2 bomber: annual report on operational status
Not later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report on the operational status of the B-2
bomber. Each such report shall include the following:
(1) An assessment as to whether the B-2 aircraft has
a high probability of being able to perform its
intended missions.
(2) Identification of all planned or ongoing
development of technologies to enhance B-2 aircraft
capabilities for which funds are programmed in the
future years defense program and an assessment as to
whether those technologies--
(A) are consistent with the Air Force bomber
roadmap in effect at the time of the report;
(B) are consistent with the recommendations
of the report of the Long-Range Air Power panel
established by section 8131 of the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law
105-56); and
(C) will be sufficient to assure that the B-2
aircraft will have a high probability of being
able to perform its intended missions in the
future.
(3) Definition of any additional technology
development required to assure that the B-2 aircraft
will retain a high probability of being able to perform
its intended missions and an estimate of the funding
required to develop those additional technologies.
(4) An assessment as to whether the technologies
identified pursuant to paragraph (2) are adequately
funded in the budget request for the next fiscal year
and whether funds have been identified throughout the
future years defense program to continue those
technology developments at an adequate level.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec.
[2301. Repealed.]
* * * * * * *
[2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property.]
2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property or services.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2306. Kinds of contracts
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) In the event funds are not made available for the
continuation of such a contract into a subsequent fiscal year,
the contract shall be canceled or terminated, and the costs of
cancellation or termination may be paid from--
[(A) appropriations originally available for the
performance of the contract concerned;
[(B) appropriations currently available for
procurement of the type of services concerned, and not
otherwise obligated; or
[(C) funds appropriated for those payments.]
(3) Additional provisions regarding mulityear contracts for
the purchase of services are provided in section 2306b of this
title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property or services
(a) In General.--To the extent that funds are otherwise
available for obligation, the head of an agency may enter into
multiyear contracts [for the purchase of property] whenever the
head of that agency finds each of the following:
(1) * * *
(2) That the minimum need for the property or
services to be purchased is expected to remain
substantially unchanged during the contemplated
contract period in terms of production rate,
procurement rate, and total quantities.
* * * * * * *
(4) [That] In the case of a contract for the purchase
of property, that there is a stable design for the
property to be acquired and that the technical risks
associated with such property or services are not
excessive.
* * * * * * *
(f) Cancellation or Termination for Insufficient Funding.--In
the event funds are not made available for the continuation of
a contract made under this section into a subsequent fiscal
year, the contract shall be canceled or terminated. The costs
of cancellation or termination may be paid from--
(1) appropriations originally available for the
performance of the contract concerned;
(2) appropriations currently available for
procurement of the type of property or services
concerned, and not otherwise obligated; or
(3) funds appropriated for those payments.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2320. Rights in technical data
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Such regulations shall include the following provisions:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Subparagraph (B) does not apply to technical data
that--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(iii) is necessary for operation,
maintenance, installation, or training (other
than detailed manufacturing or process data);
or]
(iii) is necessary for normal operation
(other than detailed manufacturing or
processing data), maintenance, installation, or
training when such services are to be provided
by an entity other than the contractor or its
subcontractor;
(iv) is necessary for critical operation,
maintenance, installation of deployed
equipment, or training, when such services are
to be provided by an entity other than the
contractor or its subcontractor; or
[(iv)] (v) is otherwise publicly available or
has been released or disclosed by the
contractor or subcontractor without restriction
on further release or disclosure.
* * * * * * *
(F) A contractor or subcontractor (or a prospective
contractor or subcontractor) may not be required, as a
condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a
condition for the award of a contract--
(i) to sell or otherwise relinquish to the
United States any rights in technical data
except--
(I) rights in technical data
described in clause (i), (ii), (iv), or
(v) of subparagraph (C); [or]
(II) under the conditions described
in subparagraph (D); or
(III) under the conditions described
in subsection (a)(2)(C)(iii), reaching
agreement in negotiations concerning
provision of the rights involved may
not be required as a condition of being
responsive to a solicitation, but may
be a condition for the award of a
contract; or
* * * * * * *
(H) In a case described in subparagraph (C)(iii), the
provision of the rights involved shall be subject to
negotiations between the Government and the contractor
or contractors involved.
(I) A description of the difference between ``normal
operation'' and ``critical operation'', as such terms
are used in subparagraph (C).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2401. Requirement for authorization by law of certain contracts
relating to vessels and aircraft
(a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) The Secretary may make a contract described in
subsection (a)(1) if--
(A) * * *
(B) before a solicitation for proposals for the
contract was issued the Secretary notified the
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services and the [Committees on Appropriations]
Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives of the Secretary's intention to issue
such a solicitation; and
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS
Sec.
2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.
* * * * * * *
2475. Consolidation of functions or activities and reengineering or
restructuring of organizations, functions, or activities:
required studies and reports before manpower reductions.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies
and reports before conversion to contractor
performance
(a) * * *
(b) Notification and Elements of Analysis.--(1) Before
commencing to analyze a commercial or industrial type function
described in subsection (a) for possible change to performance
by the private sector, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report containing the following:
(A) * * *
(D) The anticipated length and cost of the analysis,
and a certification that funds are specifically
budgeted to pay for the cost of the analysis.
* * * * * * *
(c) Notification of Decision.--(1) If, as a result of the
completion of the examinations under subsection (b)(3), a
decision is made to change the commercial or industrial type
function that was the subject of the analysis to performance by
the private sector, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report describing that decision. The report shall
contain the following:
(A) The date when the analysis of that commercial or
industrial type function for possible change to
performance by the private sector was commenced.
[(A)] (B) An indication that the examinations
required under subsection (b)(3) have been completed.
[(B)] (C) The Secretary's certification that the
Government calculation of the cost of performance of
the function by Department of Defense civilian
employees is based on an estimate of the most cost
effective manner for performance of the function by
Department of Defense civilian employees.
[(C)] (D) The Secretary's certification that the
examination required by subsection (b)(3)(A) as part of
the analysis demonstrates that the performance of the
function by the private sector will result in savings
to the Government over the life of the contract.
(E) The number of Department of Defense civilian
employees who were performing the function when the
analysis was commenced and the number of such employees
whose employment was terminated or otherwise adversely
affected in implementing the most efficient
organization of the function or whose employment will
be terminated or otherwise adversely affected by the
change to performance of the function by the private
sector.
[(D)] (F) The Secretary's certification that the
entire analysis is available for examination.
[(E)] (G) A schedule for completing the change to
performance of the function by the private sector.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2475. Consolidation of functions or activities and reengineering
or restructuring of organizations, functions, or
activities: required studies and reports before
manpower reductions
(a) Reporting and Analysis Requirements as Precondition to
Manpower Reductions.--The Secretary of Defense may not initiate
manpower reductions at organizations or activities, or within
functions, that are commercial, commercial exempt from
competition, military essential, or inherently governmental
until the Secretary fully complies with the reporting and
analysis requirements specified in subsections (b) and (c).
(b) Notification and Elements of Analysis.--Before commencing
to analyze any commercial, commercial exempt from competition,
military essential, or inherently governmental organization,
function, or activity for the consolidation, restructuring, or
reengineering of military personnel or Department of Defense
civilian employees, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report containing the following:
(1) The organization, function, or activity to be
analyzed for possible consolidation, restructuring, or
reengineering.
(2) The location or locations at which military
personnel or Department of Defense civilian employees
would be affected.
(3) The number of military personnel or Department of
Defense civilian employee positions potentially
affected.
(4) A description of the organization, function, or
activity to be analyzed for possible consolidation,
restructuring, or reengineering, including a
description of all missions, duties, or military
requirements that might be affected.
(5) An examination of the cost incurred by the
Department of Defense to perform the function or to
operate the organization or activity that will be
analyzed.
(6) A certification that a proposed consolidation,
restructuring, or reengineering of a commercial,
commercial exempt from competition, military essential,
or inherently governmental organization, function, or
activity is not a result of a decision by an official
of a military department or Defense Agency to impose
predetermined constraints or limitations on the number
of military personnel or Department of Defense civilian
employees.
(c) Notification of Decision.--If, as a result of the
completion of an analysis carried out consistent with the
requirements of subsection (b), a decision is made to
consolidate, restructure, or reengineer an organization,
function, or activity, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate a report
describing that decision. The report shall contain the
following:
(1) The Secretary's certification that the
consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering that was
analyzed will yield savings to the Department of
Defense.
(2) A projection of the savings that will be realized
as a result of the consolidation, restructuring, or
reengineering, compared with the cost incurred by the
Department of Defense to perform the function or to
operate the organization or activity prior to such
proposed consolidation, restructuring, or
reengineering.
(3) A description of all missions, duties, or
military requirements that will be affected as a result
of the decision to consolidate, restructure, or
reengineer the organization, function, or activity that
was analyzed.
(4) The Secretary's certification that the
consolidation, restructuring or reengineering will not
result in any diminution of military readiness.
(5) A schedule for performing the consolidation,
restructuring or reengineering.
(6) The Secretary's certification that the entire
analysis is available for examination.
(d) Delegation.--The responsibility to prepare reports under
subsections (b) and (c) may be delegated to the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations.
(e) Commencement; Waiver for Small Functions.--(1) The
consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering of an
organization, function, or activity for which a report is
required under subsection (c) shall not begin until at least 45
days after the submission of the report to the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
(2) Subsection (c) shall not apply to a consolidation,
restructuring, or reengineering that will result in the
elimination of 10 or fewer military or Department of Defense
civilian employee positions.
(f) Comptroller General Review.--Not later than March 1 of
each year, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a
report reviewing decisions taken by the Secretary of Defense to
consolidate, restructure, or reengineer organizations,
functions, or activities during the previous year and assessing
the Secretary's compliance with this section. The report shall
include a detailed assessment by the Comptroller General of
whether the savings projected by the Secretary to result from
such decisions are likely to be realized, and whether any
decision taken by the Secretary is likely to result in a
diminution of military readiness. The report shall also include
detailed audits of selected analyses performed by the
Secretary.
(g) Relation to Other Law.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to obviate the requirements set forth in section 1597
of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND
RECREATION ACTIVITIES
Sec.
[2481. Transferred.]
* * * * * * *
[2484. Commissary stores: expenses.]
2484. Commissary stores: use of appropriated funds to cover operating
expenses.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2484. Commissary stores: expenses
[(a) Except to the extent authorized in regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of a military department and
approved by the Secretary of Defense and except as provided in
subsection (b), funds available to the Department of Defense
may not be used to pay, in connection with the operation of any
commissary store--
[(1) the cost of purchases (including commercial
transportation in the United States to the place of
sale) and the cost of maintenance of operating
equipment and supplies;
[(2) the actual or estimated cost of utilities
furnished by the United States;
[(3) the actual or estimated cost of shrinkage,
spoilage, and pilferage of merchandise under the
control of the commissary store; or
[(4) costs incurred in connection with obtaining the
face value amount of manufacturer or vendor cents-off
discount coupons by the commissary store (or other
entity acting on behalf of the commissary store).
[(b) Appropriated funds may be used to pay any costs
described in subsection (a) but only to the extent that
appropriation accounts used to pay such costs are reimbursed
for the payment of such costs, including, in the case of any
costs incurred in connection with discount coupons referred to
in subsection (a)(4), all fees or moneys received for handling
or processing such coupons. The sales prices in commissary
stores shall be adjusted to the extent necessary to provide
sufficient gross revenues from the sales of such stores to make
such reimbursements. Such adjustments shall be made under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military
department concerned and approved by the Secretary of Defense.
[(c) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, utilities may be furnished without cost to a
commissary store outside the United States or in Alaska or
Hawaii.
[(d) Transportation outside the United States may be
furnished in connection with the operation of commissary stores
outside the United States.]
Sec. 2484. Commissary stores: use of appropriated funds to cover
operating expenses
(a) Operation of Agency and System.--Except as otherwise
provided in this title, the operation of the Defense Commissary
Agency and the defense commissary system may be funded using
such amounts as are appropriated for such purpose.
(b) Operating Expenses of Commissary Stores.--Appropriated
funds may be used to cover the expenses of operating commissary
stores and central product processing facilities of the defense
commissary system. For purposes of this subsection, operating
expenses include the following:
(1) Salaries of employees of the United States, host
nations, and contractors supporting commissary store
operations.
(2) Utilities.
(3) Communications.
(4) Operating supplies and services.
(5) Second destination transportation costs within or
outside the United States.
(6) Any cost associated with above-store level
management or other indirect support of a commissary
store or a central product processing facility,
including equipment maintenance and information
technology costs.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold; uniform
surcharges and pricing
(a) * * *
(b) Authorized Commissary Merchandise Categories.--
Merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores may include
items only in the following categories:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(11) Magazines and other periodicals.
[(11)] (12) Such other merchandise categories as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe, except that the
Secretary shall submit to Congress, not later than
March 1 of each year, a report describing--
(A) any addition of, or change in, a
merchandise category proposed to be made under
this paragraph during the one-year period
beginning on that date; and
(B) those additions and changes in
merchandise categories actually made during the
preceding one-year period.
(c) Uniform Sales Price Surcharge or Adjustment.--An
adjustment of or surcharge on sales prices in commissary stores
under [section 2484(b) or] subsection (d) or section 2685(a) of
this title or for any other purpose shall be applied as a
uniform percentage of the sales price of all merchandise sold
in, at, or by commissary stores. Effective on November 18,
1997, the uniform percentage shall be equal to five percent and
may not be changed except by a law enacted after such date.
(d) Sales Price Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall establish the sales price of each item of merchandise
sold in, at, or by commissary stores at the level that will
recoup the actual product cost of the item (consistent with
this section and [sections 2484 and] section 2685 of this
title).
* * * * * * *
(3) The sales price of merchandise and services sold in, at,
or by commissary stores shall be adjusted to cover the
following:
(A) The cost of first destination commercial
transportation of the merchandise in the United States
to the place of sale.
(B) The actual or estimated cost of shrinkage,
spoilage, and pilferage of merchandise under the
control of commissary stores.
* * * * * * *
(f) Special Rules for Certain Merchandise.--[(1)]
Notwithstanding the general requirement that merchandise sold
in, at, or by commissary stores be commissary store inventory,
the Secretary of Defense may authorize the sale of [items in
the merchandise categories specified in paragraph (2)] tobacco
products as noncommissary store inventory. Subsections (c) and
(d) shall not apply to the pricing of such merchandise items.
[(2) The merchandise categories referred to in paragraph (1)
are as follows:
[(A) Magazines and other periodicals.
[(B) Tobacco products.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2488. Nonappropriated fund instrumentalities: purchase of
alcoholic beverages
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) In the case of covered alcoholic beverage purchases of
distilled spirits, to determine whether a nonappropriated fund
instrumentality of the Department of Defense provides the most
economical method of distribution to package stores, the
Secretary of Defense shall consider all components of the
distribution costs incurred by the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality, such as overhead costs (including costs
associated with management, logistics, administration,
depreciation, and utilities), the costs of carrying inventory,
and handling and distribution costs.
[(2) If the use of a private distributor would subject
covered alcoholic beverage purchases of distilled spirits to
direct or indirect State taxation, a nonappropriated fund
instrumentality shall be considered to be the most economical
method of distribution regardless of the results of the
determination under paragraph (1).]
[(3)] (2) The Secretary shall use the agencies performing
audit functions on behalf of the armed forces and the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense to make determinations
under this subsection.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods other
than United States goods
(a) Limitation on Certain Procurements.--The Secretary of
Defense may procure any of the following items only if the
manufacturer of the item satisfies the requirements of
subsection (b):
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber.--
Polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber in accordance with
subpart 225.71 of part 225 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement, as in effect on
April 1, 2000.
* * * * * * *
(c) Applicability to Certain Items.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Valves and machine tools.--(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(C) Subsection (a)(4) and this paragraph shall cease
to be effective on October 1, 1996.]
(C)(i) Subsection (a)(4)(B), subparagraph (B), and
this clause shall cease to be effective on October 1,
1996.
(ii) Subsection (a)(4)(A), subparagraph (A), and this
clause shall cease to be effective on October 1, 2003.
[(3) Ball bearings and roller bearings.--Subsection
(a)(5) and this paragraph shall cease to be effective
on October 1, 2000.]
[(4)] (3) Vessel propellers.--Subsection
(a)(3)(A)(iii) and this paragraph shall cease to be
effective on February 10, 1998.
(4) Polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber.--Subsection
(a)(6) and this paragraph shall cease to be effective
on October 1, 2003.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VI--DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2540c. Fees charged and collected
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Administrative Fees.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
charge a fee for each guarantee issued under this subchapter to
reflect the additional administrative costs of the Department
of Defense that are directly attributable to the administration
of the program under this subchapter. Such fees shall be
credited to a special account in the Treasury. Amounts in the
special account shall be available, to the extent and in
amounts provided in appropriations Acts, for paying the costs
of administrative expenses of the Department of Defense that
are attributable to the loan guarantee program under this
subchapter.
(2)(A) If for any fiscal year amounts in the special account
established under paragraph (1) are not available (or are not
anticipated to be available) in a sufficient amount for
administrative expenses of the Department of Defense for that
fiscal year that are directly attributable to the
administration of the program under this subchapter, the
Secretary may use amounts currently available for operations
and maintenance for Defense-wide activities, not to exceed
$500,000 in any fiscal year, for those expenses.
(B) The Secretary shall, from funds in the special account
established under paragraph (1), replenish operations and
maintenance accounts for amounts expended under subparagraph
(A) as soon as the Secretary determines practicable.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 153--EXCHANGE OF MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE, SURPLUS, OR
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
Sec.
2571. Interchange of property and services.
* * * * * * *
2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to require
demilitarization after disposal.
* * * * * * *
2582. Military equipment identified on United States munitions list:
annual report of public sales.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to
require demilitarization after disposal
(a) Authority To Require Demilitarization.--The Secretary of
Defense may require any person in possession of significant
military equipment formerly owned by the Department of
Defense--
(1) to demilitarize the equipment,
(2) to have the equipment demilitarized by a third
party; or
(3) to return the equipment to the Government for
demilitarization.
(b) Cost and Validation of Demilitarization.--When the
demilitarization of significant military equipment is carried
out by the person in possession of the equipment pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the person shall be
solely responsible for all demilitarization costs, and the
United States shall have the right to validate that the
equipment has been demilitarized.
(c) Return of Equipment to Government.--When the Secretary of
Defense requires the return of significant military equipment
for demilitarization by the Government, the Secretary shall
bear all costs to transport and demilitarize the equipment. If
the person in possession of the significant military equipment
obtained the property in the manner authorized by law or
regulation and the Secretary determines that the cost to
demilitarize and return the property to the person is
prohibitive, the Secretary shall reimburse the person for the
purchase cost of the property and for the reasonable
transportation costs incurred by the person to purchase the
equipment.
(d) Establishment of Demilitarization Standards.--The
Secretary of Defense shall prescribe by regulation what
constitutes demilitarization for each type of significant
military equipment.
(e) Exception for Government Contracts.--This section does
not apply when a person is in possession of significant
military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense
for the purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a
Government contract.
(f) Definition of Significant Military Equipment.--In this
section, the term ``significant military equipment'' means--
(1) an article for which special export controls are
warranted under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2751 et seq.) because of its capacity for substantial
military utility or capability, as identified on the
United States Munitions List maintained under section
121.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(2) any other article designated by the Department of
Defense as requiring demilitarization before its
disposal.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2582. Military equipment identified on United States munitions
list: annual report of public sales
(a) Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare
an annual report identifying each public sale conducted by a
military department or Defense Agency of military items that
are--
(1) identified on the United States Munitions List
maintained under section 121.1 of title 22, Code of
Federal Regulations; and
(2) assigned a demilitarization code of ``B'' or its
equivalent.
(b) Elements of Report.--(1) A report under this section
shall cover all public sales described in subsection (a) that
were conducted during the preceding fiscal year.
(2) The report shall specify the following for each sale:
(A) The date of the sale.
(B) The military department or Defense Agency
conducting the sale.
(C) The manner in which the sale was conducted.
(D) The military items described in subsection (a)
that were sold or offered for sale.
(E) The purchaser of each item.
(F) The stated end-use of each item sold.
(c) Submission of Report.--Not later than March 31 of each
year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate the report required
by this section for the preceding fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 155--ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES
Sec.
2601. General gift funds.
* * * * * * *
[2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance of foreign
gifts and donations.]
2611. Regional centers for security studies: acceptance of foreign
gifts and donations.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance of
foreign gifts and donations
[(a) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1)
Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may accept,
on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Center, foreign gifts or
donations in order to defray the costs of, or enhance the
operation of, the Asia-Pacific Center.
[(2) In this section, the term ``Asia-Pacific Center'' means
the Department of Defense organization within the United States
Pacific Command known as the Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies.]
Sec. 2611. Regional centers for security studies: acceptance of foreign
gifts and donations
(a) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1)
Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may accept
foreign gifts or donations in order to defray the costs of, or
enhance the operation of, one of the specified defense regional
centers for security studies.
(2) For purposes of this section, a specified defense
regional center for security studies is any of the following:
(A) The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.
(B) The George C. Marshall European Center for
Security Studies.
* * * * * * *
(d) Crediting of Funds.--Funds accepted by the Secretary
under subsection (a) shall be credited to appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for [the Asia-Pacific
Center] the regional center intended to benefit from the gift
or donation of such funds. Funds so credited shall be merged
with the appropriations to which credited and shall be
available to [the Asia-Pacific Center] such regional center for
the same purposes and same period as the appropriations with
which merged.
(e) Notice to Congress.--If the total amount of funds
accepted under subsection (a) in any fiscal year with respect
to a defense regional center for security studies exceeds
$2,000,000, the Secretary shall notify Congress of the amount
of those donations for that fiscal year. Any such notice shall
list each of the contributors of such amounts and the amount of
each contribution in that fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION
Sec.
2631. Supplies: preference to United States vessels.
* * * * * * *
2647. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with leave
canceled due to contingency operations.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2647. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with leave
canceled due to contingency operations
(a) Authorization To Reimburse.--The Secretary concerned may
reimburse a member of the armed forces under the jurisdiction
of the Secretary for travel and related expenses (to the extent
not otherwise reimbursable under law) incurred by the member as
a result of the cancellation of previously approved leave when
the leave is canceled in connection with the member's
participation in a contingency operation and the cancellation
occurs within 48 hours of the time the leave would have
commenced.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations to establish the criteria for the applicability of
subsection (a).
(c) Conclusiveness of Settlement.--The settlement of an
application for reimbursement under subsection (a) is final and
conclusive.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF
NONEXCESS PROPERTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2661. Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real
property
(a) Availability of Operation and Maintenance Funds.--
Appropriations for operation and maintenance of the active
forces shall be available for the following:
(1) The repair of facilities.
(2) The installation of equipment in public and
private plants.
(b) General Leasing Authority; Maintenance of Defense Access
Roads.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each
military department may provide for the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Plan To Address Maintenance and Repair Backlog.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall develop, and update annually
thereafter, a strategic plan to reduce the backlog in
maintenance and repair needs of facilities and infrastructure
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or a
military department. At a minimum, the plan shall include or
address the following:
(A) A comprehensive strategy for the repair and
revitalization of facilities and infrastructure, or for
the demolition and replacement of unusable facilities,
carried as backlog by the Secretary concerned.
(B) Measurable goals, over specified time frames, for
achieving the objectives of the strategy.
(C) Expected funding for each military department and
Defense Agency to carry out the strategy during the
period covered by the most recent future-years defense
program submitted to Congress pursuant to section 221
of this title.
(D) The cost of the current backlog in maintenance
and repair for each military department and Defense
Agency, which shall be determined using the standard
costs to standard facility categories in the Department
of Defense Facilities Cost Factors Handbook, shown both
in the aggregate and individually for each major
military installation.
(E) The total number of square feet of building space
of each military department and Defense Agency to be
demolished or proposed for demolition under the plan,
shown both in the aggregate and individually for each
major military installation.
(F) The initiatives underway to identify facility and
infrastructure requirements at military installation to
accommodate new and developing weapons systems and to
prepare installations to accommodate these systems.
(2) Not later than March 15, 2001, the Secretary shall submit
the strategic plan to Congress. The annual updates shall be
submitted to Congress each year at or about the time that the
President's budget is submitted to Congress that year under
section 1105(a) of title 31.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2662. Real property transactions: reports to congressional
committees
(a) General Notice and Wait Requirements.--The Secretary of a
military department, or his designee, may not enter into any of
the following listed transactions by or for the use of that
department until after the expiration of 30 days from the date
upon which a report of the facts concerning the proposed
transaction is submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives:
(1) An acquisition of fee title to any real property,
if the estimated price is more than [$200,000]
$500,000.
(2) A lease of any real property to the United
States, if the estimated annual rental is more than
[$200,000] $500,000.
(3) A lease or license of real property owned by the
United States, if the estimated annual fair market
rental value of the property is more than [$200,000]
$500,000.
(4) A transfer of real property owned by the United
States to another Federal agency or another military
department or to a State, if the estimated value is
more than [$200,000] $500,000.
(5) A report of excess real property owned by the
United States to a disposal agency, if the estimated
value is more than [$200,000] $500,000.
* * * * * * *
(b) Annual Reports on Certain Minor Transactions.--The
Secretary of each military department shall submit annually to
the congressional committees named in subsection (a) a report
on transactions described in subsection (a) that involve an
estimated value of more than the simplified acquisition
threshold [under section 2304(g) of this title] specified in
section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 403(11)), but not more than [$200,000] $500,000.
* * * * * * *
(e) Notice and Wait Regarding Leases of Space for DoD by
GSA.--No element of the Department of Defense shall occupy any
general purpose space leased for it by the General Services
Administration at an annual rental in excess of [$200,000]
$500,000 (excluding the cost of utilities and other operation
and maintenance services), if the effect of such occupancy is
to increase the total amount of such leased space occupied by
all elements of the Department of Defense, until the expiration
of thirty days from the date upon which a report of the facts
concerning the proposed occupancy is submitted to the
congressional committees named in subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2667. Leases: non-excess property of military departments
(a) Whenever the Secretary of a military department considers
it advantageous to the United States, he may lease to such
lessee and upon such terms as he considers will promote the
national defense or be in the public interest, real or personal
property that is--
(1) under the control of that department; and
[(2) not for the time needed for public use; and]
[(3)] (2) not excess property, as defined by section
3 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472).
(b) A lease under subsection (a)--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) may provide, notwithstanding section 321 of the
Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b), or any other
provision of law, for the [improvement, maintenance,
protection, repair, or restoration,] alteration,
repair, or improvement, by the lessee, of the property
leased[, or of the entire unit or installation where a
substantial part of it is leased,] as the payment of
part or all of the consideration for the lease.
(c)(1) In addition to any in-kind consideration accepted
under subsection (b)(5), in-kind consideration accepted with
respect to a lease under subsection (b) may include the
following:
(A) Maintenance, protection, alteration, repair,
improvement, or restoration (including environmental
restoration) of property or facilities under the
control of the Secretary concerned.
(B) Provision of facilities for use by the Secretary
concerned.
(C) Facilities operation support for the Secretary
concerned.
(D) Provision of such other services relating to
activities that will occur on the leased property as
the Secretary concerned considers appropriate.
(2) In-kind consideration under paragraph (1) may be accepted
at any property or facilities under the control of the
Secretary concerned that are selected for that purpose by the
Secretary concerned.
(3) The Secretary concerned may not accept in-kind
consideration during a fiscal year with respect to leases under
subsection (a) until the Comptroller General certifies to the
Secretary concerned that the total received by the Secretary
concerned as money rentals for that fiscal year under such
leases is equal to the total money rentals under such leases
received by the Secretary concerned during fiscal year 2000.
(4) In the case of a lease for which all or part of the
consideration proposed to be accepted by the Secretary
concerned under this subsection is in-kind consideration with a
value in excess of $500,000, the Secretary concerned may not
enter into the lease until 30 days after the date on which a
report on the facts of the lease is submitted to the
congressional defense committees.
(d)(1)(A) * * *
[(B) Sums deposited in a military department's special
account pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be available to such
military department, as provided in appropriation Acts, as
follows:
[(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be available for
facility maintenance and repair or environmental
restoration at the military installation where the
leased property is located.
[(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be available
for facility maintenance and repair and for
environmental restoration by the military department
concerned.]
(B) Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), the amounts
deposited in the special account of a military department
pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be available to the
Secretary of that military department, in such amounts as
provided in appropriation Acts, for the following:
(i) Maintenance, protection, alteration, repair,
improvement, or restoration (including environmental
restoration) of property or facilities.
(ii) Lease of facilities.
(iii) Facilities operation support.
(C) At least 50 percent of the amounts deposited in the
special account of a military department under subparagraph (A)
by reason of a lease shall be available for activities
described in subparagraph (B) only at the military installation
where the leased property is located.
(D) The Secretary concerned may not expend under subparagraph
(B) an amount in excess of $500,000 at a single installation
until 30 days after the date on which a report on the facts of
the proposed expenditure is submitted to the congressional
defense committees.
* * * * * * *
(3) [As part of the request for authorizations of
appropriations submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives for each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense]
Not later than March 15 each year, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
which shall include--
(A) an accounting of the receipt and use of all money
rentals that were deposited and expended under this
subsection during the fiscal year preceding the fiscal
year in which the [request] report is made; and
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4) The Secretary concerned may accept under subsection
(b)(5) services of a lessee for an entire installation to be
closed or realigned under a base closure law, or for any part
of such installation, without regard to the requirement in
subsection (b)(5) that a substantial part of the installation
be leased.]
[(5)] (4)(A) Notwithstanding the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the scope of any
environmental impact analysis necessary to support an interim
lease of property under this subsection shall be limited to the
environmental consequences of activities authorized under the
proposed lease and the cumulative impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions during the
period of the proposed lease.
* * * * * * *
[(h) In this section, the term ``base closure law'' means
each of the following:
[(1) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note).
[(2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments
and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-
526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
[(3) Section 2687 of this title.]
(h) In this section:
(1) The term ``congressional defense committees''
means:
(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
(B) The Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(2) The term ``base closure law'' means the
following:
(A) Section 2687 of this title.
(B) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(C) Title II of the Defense Authorization
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act
(Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(3) The term ``military installation'' has the
meaning given such term in section 2687(e)(1) of this
title.
[(c)] (i) This section does not apply to oil, mineral, or
phosphate lands.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2685. Adjustment of or surcharge on selling prices in commissary
stores to provide funds for construction and
improvement of commissary store facilities
(a) Adjustment or Surcharge Authorized.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the [Secretary of a military
department, under regulations established by him and approved
by the Secretary of Defense,] Secretary of Defense may, for the
purposes of this section, provide for an adjustment of, or
surcharge on, sales prices of goods and services sold in
commissary store facilities.
[(b) Use for Construction and Improvement of Facilities.--The
Secretary of a military department, under regulations
established by him and approved by the Secretary of Defense,
may use the proceeds from the adjustments or surcharges
authorized by subsection (a) to acquire, construct, convert,
expand, install, or otherwise improve commissary store
facilities at defense installations and for related
environmental evaluation and construction costs, including
surveys, administration, overhead, planning, and design.]
(b) Use for Construction, Repair, Improvement, and
Maintenance.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may use the proceeds
from the adjustments or surcharges authorized by subsection (a)
only--
(A) to acquire (including acquisition by lease),
construct, convert, expand, improve, repair, maintain,
and equip the physical infrastructure of commissary
stores and central product processing facilities of the
defense commissary system; and
(B) to cover environmental evaluation and
construction costs, including surveys, administration,
overhead, planning, and design, related to activities
described in paragraph (1).
(2) In paragraph (1), the term ``physical infrastructure''
includes real property, utilities, and equipment (installed and
free standing and including computer equipment), necessary to
provide a complete and usable commissary store or central
product processing facility.
(c) Advance Obligation.--The [Secretary of a military
department, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense and]
Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, may obligate anticipated
proceeds from the adjustments or surcharges authorized by
subsection (a) for any use specified in subsection (b) or (d),
without regard to fiscal year limitations, if the [Secretary of
the military department determines] Secretary determines that
such obligation is necessary to carry out any use of such
adjustments or surcharges specified in subsection (b) or (d).
(d) Cooperation With Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.--(1) The [Secretary of a military
department] Secretary of Defense may authorize a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States to
enter into a contract for construction of a shopping mall or
similar facility for a commissary store and one or more
nonappropriated fund instrumentality activities. The Secretary
may use the proceeds of adjustments or surcharges authorized by
subsection (a) to reimburse the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality for the portion of the cost of the contract
that is attributable to construction of the commissary store or
to pay the contractor directly for that portion of such cost.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2688. Utility systems: conveyance authority
(a) * * *
[(b) Selection of Conveyee.--If more than one utility or
entity referred to in subsection (a) notifies the Secretary
concerned of an interest in a conveyance under such subsection,
the Secretary shall carry out the conveyance through the use of
competitive procedures.]
(b) Selection of Conveyee or Awardee.--(1) The Secretary
concerned shall comply with the competition requirements of
section 2304 of this title in conveying a utility system under
this section and in awarding any utility services contract
related to the conveyance of the utility system.
(2) A conveyance or award may be made under paragraph (1)
only if the Secretary concerned determines that the conveyance
or award complies with State laws, regulations, rulings, and
policies governing the provision of utility services. Such
State laws, regulations, rulings, and policies shall apply to
the conveyee or awardee notwithstanding the existence of
exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction as to any parcels of
land served by the utility system.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 160--ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2703. Environmental restoration accounts
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(b) Obligation of Authorized Amounts.--Funds authorized for
deposit in an account under subsection (a) may be obligated or
expended from the account only in order to carry out the
environmental restoration functions of the Secretary of Defense
and theSecretaries of the military departments under this
chapter and under any other provision of law. Funds so authorized shall
remain available until expended.]
(b) Obligation of Authorized Amounts.--(1) Funds authorized
for deposit in an account under subsection (a) may be obligated
or expended from the account only--
(A) to carry out the environmental restoration
functions of the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretaries of the military departments under this
chapter and under any other provision of law; and
(B) to relocate activities from defense sites,
including sites formerly used by the Department of
Defense that are released from Federal Government
control, at which the Secretary is responsible for
environmental restoration functions.
(2) The authority provided by paragraph (1)(B) expires
September 30, 2003. Not more than five percent of the funds
deposited in an account under subsection (a) for a fiscal year
may be used for activities under paragraph (1)(B).
(3) If relocation assistance under paragraph (1)(B) is to be
provided with respect to a site formerly used by the Department
of Defense, but now released from Federal Government control,
the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military
department concerned may use only fund transfer mechanisms
otherwise available to the Secretary. The Secretary may not
provide assistance under such paragraph for permanent
relocation from the affected site unless the Secretary
determines that permanent relocation is the most cost effective
method of dealing with the activities located at the affected
site and notifies the Congress of the determination before
providing the assistance.
(4) Funds authorized for deposit in an account under
subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2826. Limitations on space by pay grade
[(a) In the construction, acquisition, and improvement of
military family housing units, the following are the space
limitations for the applicable numbers of bedrooms permitted
for each pay grade:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Net floor area
[Pay grade bedrooms (square feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-7 and above................................ 4 2,100
O-6.......................................... 4 1,700
O-4 and O-5.................................. 4 1,550
3 1,400
O-1 through O-3; W-1 through W-4; and E-7 5 1,550
through E-9.................................
4 1,450
3 1,350
2 950
E-1 through E-6.............................. 5 1,550
4 1,350
3 1,200
2 950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(b) The applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by
subsection (a) may be increased by 10 percent for the housing
unit of an officer holding a special command position (as
designated by the Secretary of Defense), for the housing unit
of the commanding officer of a military installation, and for
the senior noncommissioned officer of a military installation.
[(c) The maximum net floor area prescribed by subsection (a)
may be increased in any case by 5 percent if the Secretary
concerned determines that the increase is in the best interest
of the Government (1) to permit award of a turnkey construction
contract to the contractor offering the most satisfactory
proposal, or (2) to permit purchase, lease, or conversion of
housing units. An increase in the maximum net floor area of a
housing unit under subsection (b) when combined with an
increase in the maximum net floor area of such unit under this
subsection may not exceed 10 percent of the otherwise
applicable limitation prescribed by subsection (a).
[(d) The applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by
subsection (a) may be increased by 300 square feet for a family
housing unit in a location where harsh climatological
conditions severely restrict outdoor activity for a significant
part of each year, as determined by the Secretary concerned
pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
The regulations shall apply uniformly to the armed forces.
[(e) In the case of the acquisition by purchase of military
family housing units for members of the armed forces in pay
grades below pay grade O-6, the applicable maximum net floor
area prescribed by subsection (a) may be increased by 20
percent if the Secretary concerned determines that the purchase
of larger units is cost effective when compared to available
units within the space limitations specified in that
subsection.
[(f)(1) The Secretary concerned may waive the provisions of
subsection (a) with respect to a family housing unit leased in
a foreign country if a suitable family housing unit within the
applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by such subsection
cannot be obtained.
[(2) Subsection (a) does not apply to family housing units in
foreign countries constructed or acquired by the Secretary of
State for occupancy by members of the armed forces.
[(g) The maximum net floor areas prescribed by this section
apply to family housing provided to civilian personnel based
upon civilian pay scale comparability with military pay grades,
as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
[(h) In this section, the term ``net floor area'' means the
total number of square feet of the floor space inside the
exterior walls of a structure, excluding the floor area of an
unfinished basement, an unfinished attic, a utility space, a
garage, a carport, an open or insect-screened porch, a
stairwell, and any space used for a solar-energy system.
[(i)(1) The Secretary concerned may waive the provisions of
subsection (a) with respect to military family housing units
constructed, acquired, or improved during the five-year period
beginning on February 10, 1996.
[(2) The total number of military family housing units
constructed, acquired, or improved during any fiscal year in
the period referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the total
number of such units authorized by law for that fiscal year.]
Sec. 2826. Limitations on space by pay grade
In the construction, acquisition, and improvement of military
family housing units, the Secretary concerned shall ensure that
the room patterns and floor areas are generally comparable to
the room patterns and floor areas of similar housing units in
the locality concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2828. Leasing of military family housing
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) The Secretary of the Army may lease not more than
eight housing units in the vicinity of Miami, Florida, for key
and essential personnel, as designated by the Secretary, for
the United States Southern Command for which the expenditure
for the rental of such units (including the cost of utilities,
maintenance, and operation, including security enhancements)
exceeds the expenditure limitations in paragraphs (2) and (3).
The total amount for all leases under this paragraph may not
exceed $280,000 per year, [and no lease on any individual
housing unit may exceed $60,000 per year] and the lease
payments shall be made out of annual appropriations for that
year. A lease under this paragraph may not exceed five years.
(B) At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Secretary of
the Army shall adjust the maximum amount provided for leases
under subparagraph (A) for the previous fiscal year by the
percentage (if any) by which the basic allowance for housing
under section 403 of title 37 for the Miami metropolitan area
during the preceding fiscal year exceeded such basic allowance
for housing for the second preceding fiscal year.
(5) At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Secretary
concerned shall adjust the maximum lease amount provided for
under [paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)] paragraphs (2) and (3) for
the previous fiscal year by the percentage (if any) by which
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, during the preceding fiscal
year exceeds such Consumer Price Index for the fiscal year
before such preceding fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
MILITARY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2885. Expiration of authority
The authority to enter into a contract under this subchapter
shall expire on February 10, [2001] 2006.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Army
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 367--RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned
officers
(a) * * *
(b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of
the Army, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, to reduce the
requirement under subsection (a) for at least 10 years of
active service as a commissioned officer to a period
(determined by the Secretary of the Army) of not less than
eight years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 369--RETIRED GRADE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3961. General rule
(a) The retired grade of a regular commissioned officer of
the Army who retires other than for physical disability, and
the retired grade of a reserve commissioned officer of the Army
who retires other than for physical disability [or for
nonregular service under chapter 1223 of this title], is
determined under section 1370 of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 373--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
4021. Army War College and United States Army Command and General Staff
College: civilian faculty members.
* * * * * * *
4027. Civilian special agents of the Criminal Investigation Command:
authority to execute warrants and make arrests.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4027. Civilian special agents of the Criminal Investigation
Command: authority to execute warrants and make
arrests
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Army may authorize any
Department of the Army civilian employee described in
subsection (b) to have the same authority to execute and serve
warrants and other processes issued under the authority of the
United States and to make arrests without a warrant as may be
authorized under section 1585a of this title for special agents
of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
(b) Agents To Have Authority.--Subsection (a) applies to any
employee of the Department of the Army who is a special agent
of the Army Criminal Investigation Command (or a successor to
that command) whose duties include conducting, supervising, or
coordinating investigations of criminal activity in programs
and operations of the Department of the Army.
(c) Guidelines for Exercise of Authority.--The authority
provided under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance
with guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Army and
approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General
and any other applicable guidelines prescribed by the Secretary
of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, or the Attorney General.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 407--SCHOOLS AND CAMPS
Sec.
4411. Establishment: purpose.
* * * * * * *
[4415. United States Army School of the Americas.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 4415. United States Army School of the Americas
[(a) The Secretary of the Army may operate the military
education and training facility known as the United States Army
School of the Americas.
[(b) The School of the Americas shall be operated for the
purpose of providing military education and training to
military personnel of Central and South American countries and
Caribbean countries.
[(c) The fixed costs of operating and maintaining the School
of the Americas may be paid from funds available for operation
and maintenance of the Army.
[(d) Tuition fees charged for personnel receiving military
education and training from the school may not include the
fixed costs of operating and maintaining the school.]
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 506--HEADQUARTERS, MARINE CORPS
Sec.
5041. Headquarters, Marine Corps: function; composition.
* * * * * * *
[5045. Chief of Staff; Deputy and Ass5045. Deputy Commandants.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5041. Headquarters, Marine Corps: function; composition
(a) * * *
(b) The Headquarters, Marine Corps, is composed of
the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) The Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps.
[(4) The Deputy Chiefs of Staff.
[(5) The Assistant Chiefs of Staff.]
(3) The Deputy Commandants.
[(6)] (4) Other members of the Navy and Marine Corps
assigned or detailed to the Headquarters, Marine Corps.
[(7)] (5) Civilian employees in the Department of the
Navy assigned or detailed to the Headquarters, Marine
Corps.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 5045. Chief of Staff; Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff
[There are in the Headquarters, Marine Corps, a Chief of
Staff, not more than five Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and not more
than three Assistant Chiefs of Staff, detailed by the Secretary
of the Navy from officers on the active-duty list of the Marine
Corps.]
Sec. 5045. Deputy Commandants
There are in the Headquarters Marine Corps, not more than
five Deputy Commandants, detailed by the Secretary of the Navy
from officers on the active-duty list of the Marine Corps.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 513--BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Grade.--(1) * * *
(2) The Chief of Naval Reserve, while so serving, [has a
grade] has the grade of rear admiral, without vacating the
officer's permanent grade. However, if selected in accordance
with section 12505 of this title, he may be appointed in the
grade of vice admiral.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)
* * * * * * *
(2) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, while so serving,
[has a grade] has the grade of major general, without vacating
the officer's permanent grade. However, if selected in
accordance with section 12505 of this title, he may be
appointed in the grade of lieutenant general.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 555--ADMINISTRATION
Sec.
6011. Navy Regulations.
* * * * * * *
6035. Female members: congressional review period for assignment to
duty on submarines or for reconfiguration of submarines.
Sec. 6035. Female members: congressional review period for assignment
to duty on submarines or for reconfiguration of
submarines
(a) No change in the Department of the Navy policy limiting
service on submarines to males, as in effect on May 10, 2000,
may take effect until--
(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress
written notice of the proposed change; and
(2) a period of 120 days of continuous session of
Congress expires following the date on which the notice
is received.
(b) No funds available to the Department of the Navy may be
expended to reconfigure any existing submarine, or to design
any new submarine, to accommodate female crew members until--
(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress
written notice of the proposed reconfiguration or
design; and
(2) a period of 120 days of continuous session of
Congress expires following the date on which the notice
is received.
(c) For purposes of this section--
(1) the continuity of a session of Congress is broken
only by an adjournment of the Congress sine die; and
(2) the days on which either House of Congress is not
in session because of an adjournment of more than three
days to a day certain are excluded in the computation
of such 120-day period.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 571--VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6323. Officers: 20 years
(a)(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of
the Navy, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, to reduce the
requirement under paragraph (1) for at least 10 years of active
service as a commissioned officer to a period (determined by
the Secretary) of not less than eight years.
* * * * * * *
PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 605--UNITED STATES NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Sec.
7041. Function.
* * * * * * *
7049. Defense industry civilians: admission to defense product
development program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7049. Defense industry civilians: admission to defense product
development program
(a) Authority for Admission.--The Secretary of the Navy may
permit eligible defense industry employees to receive
instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School in accordance with
this section. Any such defense industry employee may only be
enrolled in, and may only be provided instruction in, a program
leading to a masters's degree in a curriculum related to
defense product development. No more than 10 such defense
industry employees may be enrolled at any one time. Upon
successful completion of the course of instruction in which
enrolled, any such defense industry employee may be awarded an
appropriate degree under section 7048 of this title.
(b) Eligible Defense Industry Employees.--For purposes of
this section, an eligible defense industry employee is an
individual employed by a private firm that is engaged in
providing to the Department of Defense significant and
substantial defense-related systems, products, or services. A
defense industry employee admitted for instruction at the
school remains eligible for such instruction only so long at
that person remains employed by the same firm.
(c) Annual Certification by the Secretary of the Navy.--
Defense industry employees may receive instruction at the
school during any academic year only if, before the start of
that academic year, the Secretary of the Navy determines, and
certifies to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives, that providing instruction to defense industry
employees under this section during that year--
(1) will further the military mission of the school;
(2) will enhance the ability of the Department of
Defense and defense-oriented private sector contractors
engaged in the design and development of defense
systems to reduce the product and project lead times
required to bring such systems to initial operational
capability; and
(3) will be done on a space-available basis and not
require an increase in the size of the faculty of the
school, an increase in the course offerings of the
school, or an increase in the laboratory facilities or
other infrastructure of the school.
(d) Program Requirements.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
ensure that--
(1) the curriculum for the defense product
development program in which defense industry employees
may be enrolled under this section is not readily
available through other schools and concentrates on
defense product development functions that are
conducted by military organizations and defense
contractors working in close cooperation; and
(2) the course offerings at the school continue to be
determined solely by the needs of the Department of
Defense.
(e) Tuition.--The Superintendent of the school shall charge
tuition for students enrolled under this section at a rate not
less than the rate charged for employees of the United States
outside the Department of the Navy.
(f) Standards of Conduct.--While receiving instruction at the
school, students enrolled under this section, to the extent
practicable, are subject to the same regulations governing
academic performance, attendance, norms of behavior, and
enrollment as apply to Government civilian employees receiving
instruction at the school.
(g) Use of Funds.--Amounts received by the school for
instruction of students enrolled under this section shall be
retained by the school to defray the costs of such instruction.
The source, and the disposition, of such funds shall be
specifically identified in records of the school.
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 643--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
7472. Physical examination: employees engaged in hazardous occupations.
* * * * * * *
7451. Special agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service:
authority to execute warrants and make arrests.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7451. Special agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service:
authority to execute warrants and make arrests
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Navy may authorize any
Department of the Navy civilian employee described in
subsection (b) to have the same authority to execute and serve
warrants and other processes issued under the authority of the
United States and to make arrests without a warrant as may be
authorized under section 1585a of this title for special agents
of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
(b) Agents To Have Authority.--Subsection (a) applies to any
employee of the Department of the Navy who is a special agent
of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor
to that service) whose duties include conducting, supervising,
or coordinating investigations of criminal activity in programs
and operations of the Department of the Navy.
(c) Guidelines for Exercise of Authority.--The authority
provided under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance
with guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy and
approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General
and any other applicable guidelines prescribed by the Secretary
of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense, or the Attorney General.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Air Force
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 867--RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned
officers
(a) * * *
(b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of
the Air Force, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990,
and ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, to reduce
the requirement under subsection (a) for at least 10 years of
active service as a commissioned officer to a period
(determined by the Secretary of the Air Force) of not less than
eight years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 873--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
9021. Air University: civilian faculty members.
* * * * * * *
9027. Civilian special agents of the Office of Special Investigations:
authority to execute warrants and make arrests.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9027. Civilian special agents of the Office of Special
Investigations: authority to execute warrants and
make arrests
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Air Force may authorize
any Department of the Air Force civilian employee described in
subsection (b) to have the same authority to execute and serve
warrants and other processes issued under the authority of the
United States and to make arrests without a warrant as may be
authorized under section 1585a of this title for special agents
of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
(b) Agents To Have Authority.--Subsection (a) applies to any
employee of the Department of the Air Force who is a special
agent of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (or a
successor to that office) whose duties include conducting,
supervising, or coordinating investigations of criminal
activity in programs and operations of the Department of the
Air Force.
(c) Guidelines for Exercise of Authority.--The authority
provided under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance
with guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force
and approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney
General and any other applicable guidelines prescribed by the
Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of Defense, or the
Attorney General.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
[CHAPTER 909--CIVIL AIR PATROL
[Sec.
[9441. Status: support by Air Force; employment.
[9442. Assistance by other agencies.
[Sec. 9441. Status: support by Air Force; employment
[(a) The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary
of the Air Force.
[(b) To assist the Civil Air Patrol in the fulfillment of its
objectives as set forth in section 40302 of title 36, the
Secretary of the Air Force may, under regulations prescribed by
him with the approval of the Secretary of Defense--
[(1) give, lend, or sell to the Civil Air Patrol
without regard to the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40
U.S.C. 471 et seq.)--
[(A) major items of equipment, including
aircraft, motor vehicles, and communication
equipment; and
[(B) necessary related supplies and training
aids;
that are excess to the military departments;
[(2) permit the use of such services and facilities
of the Air Force as he considers to be needed by the
Civil Air Patrol to carry out its mission;
[(3) furnish such quantities of fuel and lubricants
to the Civil Air Patrol as are needed by it to carry
out any mission assigned to it by the Air Force,
including unit capability testing missions and training
missions;
[(4) establish, maintain, and supply liaison offices
of the Air Force at the National, State, and
Territorial headquarters, and at not more than eight
regional headquarters, of the Civil Air Patrol;
[(5) detail or assign any member of the Air Force or
any officer or employee of the Department of the Air
Force to any liaison office at the National, State, or
Territorial headquarters, and at not more than eight
regional headquarters, of the Civil Air Patrol;
[(6) detail any member of the Air Force or any
officer or employee of the Department of the Air Force
to any unit or installation of the Civil Air Patrol to
assist in the training program of the Civil Air Patrol;
[(7) in time of war, or of national emergency
declared after May 27, 1954, by Congress or the
President, authorize the payment of travel expenses and
allowances, in accordance with subchapter I of chapter
57 of title 5, to members of the Civil Air Patrol while
carrying out any mission specifically assigned by the
Air Force;
[(8) provide funds for the national headquarters of
the Civil Air Patrol, including funds for the payment
of staff compensation and benefits, administrative
expenses, travel, per diem and allowances, rent and
utilities, and other operational expenses;
[(9) authorize the payment of aircraft maintenance
expenses relating to operational missions, unit
capability testing missions, and training missions;
[(10) authorize the payment of expenses of placing
into serviceable condition major items of equipment
(including aircraft, motor vehicles, and communications
equipment) owned by the Civil Air Patrol;
[(11) reimburse the Civil Air Patrol for costs
incurred for the purchase of such major items of
equipment as the Secretary considers needed by the
Civil Air Patrol to carry out its missions; and
[(12) furnish articles of the Air Force uniform to
Civil Air Patrol cadets without cost to such cadets.
[(c) The Secretary may use the services of the Civil Air
Patrol in fulfilling the noncombat mission of the Department of
the Air Force, and for purposes of determining the civil
liability of the Civil Air Patrol (or any member thereof) with
respect to any act or omission committed by the Civil Air
Patrol (or any member thereof) in fulfilling such mission, the
Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of
the United States.
[(d)(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may authorize the
Civil Air Patrol to employ, as administrators and liaison
officers, persons retired from service in the Air Force whose
qualifications are approved under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary and who request such employment.
[(2) A person employed pursuant to paragraph (1) may receive
the person's retired pay and an additional amount for such
employment that is not more than the difference between the
person's retired pay and the pay and allowances the person
would be entitled to receive if ordered to active duty in the
grade in which the person retired from service in the Air
Force. The additional amount shall be paid to the Civil Air
Patrol by the Secretary from funds appropriated for that
purpose.
[(3) A person employed pursuant to paragraph (1) may not,
while so employed, be considered to be on active duty or
inactive-duty training for any purpose.
[Sec. 9442. Assistance by other agencies
[The Secretary of the Air Force may arrange for the use by
the Civil Air Patrol of such facilities and services under the
jurisdiction of the Secretry of the Army, the Secretary of the
Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the
United States as the Secretary of the Air Force considers to be
needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out its mission. Any
such arrangements shall be made under regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of the Air Force with the approval of the
Secretary of Defense and shall be subject to the agreement of
the other military department or other department or agency of
the United States furnishing the facilities or services.]
CHAPTER 909--CIVIL AIR PATROL
Sec.
9441. Status as federally chartered corporation; purposes.
9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force.
9443. Activities not performed as auxiliary of the Air Force.
9444. Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force.
9445. Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol.
9446. Miscellaneous personnel authorities.
9447. Board of Governors.
9448. Regulations.
Sec. 9441. Status as federally chartered corporation; purposes
(a) Status.--(1) The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit
corporation that is federally chartered under section 40301 of
title 36.
(2) Except as provided in section 9442(b)(2) of this title,
the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal
Government for any purpose.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Civil Air Patrol are set
forth in section 40302 of title 36.
Sec. 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force
(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.--The Civil Air Patrol is a
volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services
of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in
any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.--(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may
use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the
noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air
Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an
instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or
omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the
Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the
Secretary of the Air Force.
Sec. 9443. Activities not performed as auxiliary of the Air Force
(a) Support for State and Local Authorities.--The Civil Air
Patrol may, in its status as a federally chartered nonprofit
corporation and not as an auxiliary of the Air Force, provide
assistance requested by State or local governmental authorities
to perform disaster relief missions and activities, other
emergency missions and activities, and nonemergency missions
and activities. Missions and activities carried out under this
section shall be consistent with the purposes of the Civil Air
Patrol.
(b) Use of Federally Provided Resources.--(1) To perform any
mission or activity authorized under subsection (a), the Civil
Air Patrol may use any equipment, supplies, and other resources
provided to it by the Air Force or by any other department or
agency of the Federal Government or acquired by or for the
Civil Air Patrol with appropriated funds, without regard to
whether the Civil Air Patrol has reimbursed the Federal
Government source for the equipment, supplies, other resources,
or funds, as the case may be.
(2) The use of equipment, supplies, or other resources under
paragraph (1) is subject to--
(A) the terms and conditions of the applicable
agreement entered into under chapter 63 of title 31;
and
(B) the laws and regulations that govern the use by
nonprofit corporations of federally provided assets or
of assets purchased with appropriated funds, as the
case may be.
(c) Authority Not Contingent on Reimbursement.--The authority
for the Civil Air Patrol to provide assistance under
subsections (a) and (b) is not contingent on the Civil Air
Patrol being reimbursed for the cost of providing the
assistance. If the Civil Air Patrol requires reimbursement for
the provision of assistance under such subsections, the Civil
Air Patrol may establish the reimbursement rate at a rate less
than the rates charged by private sector sources for equivalent
services.
(d) Liability Insurance.--The Secretary of the Air Force may
provide the Civil Air Patrol with funds for paying the cost of
liability insurance for missions and activities carried out
under this section.
Sec. 9444. Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force
(a) Air Force Support for Activities.--The Secretary of the
Air Force may furnish to the Civil Air Patrol in accordance
with this section any equipment, supplies, and other resources
that the Secretary determines necessary to enable the Civil Air
Patrol to fulfill the missions assigned by the Secretary to the
Civil Air Patrol as an auxiliary of the Air Force.
(b) Forms of Air Force Support.--The Secretary of the Air
Force may, under subsection (a)--
(1) give, lend, or sell to the Civil Air Patrol
without regard to the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et
seq.)--
(A) major items of equipment (including
aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and
communications equipment) that are excess to
the military departments; and
(B) necessary related supplies and training
aids that are excess to the military
departments;
(2) permit the use, with or without charge, of
services and facilities of the Air Force;
(3) furnish supplies (including fuel, lubricants, and
other items required for vehicle and aircraft
operations) or provide funds for the acquisition of
supplies;
(4) establish, maintain, and supply liaison officers
of the Air Force at the national, regional, State, and
territorial headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol;
(5) detail or assign any member of the Air Force or
any officer, employee, or contractor of the Department
of the Air Force to any liaison office at the national,
regional, State, or territorial headquarters of the
Civil Air Patrol;
(6) detail any member of the Air Force or any
officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of
the Air Force to any unit or installation of the Civil
Air Patrol to assist in the training programs of the
Civil Air Patrol;
(7) authorize the payment of travel expenses and
allowances, at rates not to exceed those paid to
employees of the United States under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, to members of the Civil Air
Patrol while the members are carrying out programs or
missions specifically assigned by the Air Force;
(8) provide funds for the national headquarters of
the Civil Air Patrol, including--
(A) funds for the payment of staff
compensation and benefits, administrative
expenses, travel, per diem and allowances,
rent, utilities, other operational expenses of
the national headquarters; and
(B) to the extent considered necessary by the
Secretary of the Air Force to fulfill Air Force
requirements, funds for the payment of
compensation and benefits for key staff at
regional, State, or territorial headquarters;
(9) authorize the payment of expenses of placing into
serviceable condition, improving, and maintaining
equipment (including aircraft, motor vehicles,
computers, and communications equipment) owned or
leased by the Civil Air Patrol;
(10) provide funds for the lease or purchase of items
of equipment that the Secretary determines necessary
for the Civil Air Patrol;
(11) support the Civil Air Patrol cadet program by
furnishing--
(A) articles of the Air Force uniform to
cadets without cost; and
(B) any other support that the Secretary of
the Air Force determines is consistent with Air
Force missions and objectives; and
(12) provide support, including appropriated funds,
for the Civil Air Patrol aerospace education program to
the extent that the Secretary of the Air Force
determines appropriate for furthering the fulfillment
of Air Force missions and objectives.
(c) Assistance by Other Agencies.--(1) The Secretary of the
Air Force may arrange for the use by the Civil Air Patrol of
such facilities and services under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head
of any other department or agency of the United States as the
Secretary of the Air Force considers to be needed by the Civil
Air Patrol to carry out its mission.
(2) An arrangement for use of facilities or services of a
military department or other department or agency under this
subsection shall be subject to the agreement of the Secretary
of the military department or head of the other department or
agency, as the case may be.
(3) Each arrangement under this subsection shall be made in
accordance with regulations prescribed under section 9448 of
this title.
Sec. 9445. Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol
Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol shall be
available only for the exclusive use of the Civil Air Patrol.
Sec. 9446. Miscellaneous personnel authorities
(a) Use of Retired Air Force Personnel.--(1) Upon the request
of a person retired from service in the Air Force, the
Secretary of the Air Force may enter into a personal services
contract with that person providing for the person to serve as
an administrator or liaison officer for the Civil Air Patrol.
The qualifications of a person to provide the services shall be
determined and approved in accordance with regulations
prescribed under section 9448 of this title.
(2) To the extent provided in a contract under paragraph (1),
a person providing services under the contract may accept
services on behalf of the Air Force and commit and obligate
appropriated funds as necessary to perform the services.
(3) A person, while providing services under a contract
authorized under paragraph (1), may receive the person's
retired pay and an additional amount for such services that is
not less than the amount equal to the excess of--
(A) the pay and allowances that the person would be
entitled to receive if ordered to active duty in the
grade in which the person retired from service in the
Air Force, over
(B) the amount of the person's retired pay.
(4) A person, while providing services under a contract
authorized under paragraph (1), may not be considered to be on
active duty or inactive-duty training for any purpose.
(b) Use of Civil Air Patrol Chaplains.--The Secretary of the
Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in
support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component
forces to the extent and under conditions that the Secretary
determines appropriate.
Sec. 9447. Board of Governors
(a) Governing Body.--The Board of Governors of the Civil Air
Patrol is the governing body of the Civil Air Patrol.
(b) Composition.--The Board of Governors is composed of 11
members as follows:
(1) Four members appointed by the Secretary of the
Air Force, who may be active or retired officers of the
Air Force (including reserve components of the Air
Force), employees of the United States, or private
citizens.
(2) Four members of the Civil Air Patrol, elected
from among the members of the Civil Air Patrol in the
manner provided in regulations prescribed under section
9448 of this title.
(3) Three members appointed or selected as provided
in subsection (c) from among personnel of any Federal
Government agencies, public corporations, nonprofit
associations, and other organizations that have an
interest and expertise in civil aviation and the Civil
Air Patrol mission.
(c) Appointments From Interested Organizations.--(1) Subject
to paragraph (2), the members of the Board of Governors
referred to in subsection (b)(3) shall be appointed jointly by
the Secretary of the Air Force and the National Commander of
the Civil Air Patrol.
(2) Any vacancy in the position of a member referred to in
paragraph (1) that is not filled under that paragraph within 90
days shall be filled by majority vote of the other members of
the Board.
(d) Chairperson.--(1) The Chairperson of the Board of
Governors shall be chosen by the members of the Board of
Governors from among the members of the Board eligible for
selection under paragraph (2) and shall serve for a term of two
years.
(2) The position of Chairperson shall be held on a rotating
basis, first by a member of the Board selected from among those
appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force under paragraph (1)
of subsection (b) and then by a member of the Board selected
from among the members elected by the Civil Air Patrol under
paragraph (2) of that subsection. Upon the expiration of the
term of a Chairperson selected from among the members referred
to in one of those paragraphs, the selection of a successor to
that position shall be made from among the members who are
referred to in the other paragraph.
(e) Powers.--(1) The Board of Governors shall, subject to
paragraphs (2) and (3), exercise the powers granted under
section 40304 of title 36.
(2) Any exercise by the Board of the power to amend the
constitution or bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol or to adopt a
new constitution or bylaws shall be subject to approval by a
majority of the members of the Board.
(3) Neither the Board of Governors nor any other component of
the Civil Air Patrol may modify or terminate any requirement or
authority set forth in this section.
(f) Personal Liability for Breach of a Fiduciary Duty.--(1)
The Board of Governors shall, subject to paragraph (2), take
such action as is necessary to eliminate or limit the personal
liability of a member of the Board of Governors to the Civil
Air Patrol or to any of its members for monetary damages for a
breach of fiduciary duty while serving as a member of the
Board.
(2) The Board may not eliminate or limit the liability of a
member of the Board of Governors to the Civil Air Patrol or to
any of its members for monetary damages for any of the
following:
(A) A breach of the member's duty of loyalty to the
Civil Air Patrol or its members.
(B) Any act or omission that is not in good faith or
that involves intentional misconduct or a knowing
violation of law.
(C) Participation in any transaction from which the
member directly or indirectly derives an improper
personal benefit.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
rendering section 207 or 208 of title 18 inapplicable in any
respect to a member of the Board of Governors who is a member
of the Air Force on active duty, an officer on a retired list
of the Air Force, or an employee of the United States.
(g) Personal Liability for Breach of a Fiduciary Duty.--(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2), no member of the Board of
Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol shall be
personally liable for damages for any injury or death or loss
or damage of property resulting from a tortious act or omission
of an employee or member of the Civil Air Patrol.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member of the Board of
Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol for a tortious act
or omission in which the member or officer, as the case may be,
was personally involved, whether in breach of a civil duty or
in commission of a criminal offense.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to restrict
the applicability of common law protections and rights that a
member of the Board of Governors or officer of the Civil Air
Patrol may have.
(4) The protections provided under this subsection are in
addition to the protections provided under subsection (f).
Sec. 9448. Regulations
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall
prescribe regulations for the administration of this chapter.
(b) Required Regulations.--The regulations shall include the
following:
(1) Regulations governing the conduct of the
activities of the Civil Air Patrol when it is
performing its duties as a volunteer civilian auxiliary
of the Air Force under section 9442 of this title.
(2) Regulations for providing support by the Air
Force and for arranging assistance by other agencies
under section 9444 of this title.
(3) Regulations governing the qualifications of
retired Air Force personnel to serve as an
administrator or liaison officer for the Civil Air
Patrol under a personal services contract entered into
under section 9446(a) of this title.
(4) Procedures and requirements for the election of
members of the Board of Governors under section
9447(b)(2) of this title.
(c) Approval by Secretary of Defense.--The regulations
required by subsection (b)(2) shall be subject to the approval
of the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Reserve Components
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10218. Army and Air Force Reserve technicians: conditions for
retention; mandatory retirement under civil service
laws
(a) Separation and Retirement of Military Technicians (Dual
Status).--(1) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the
Air Force Reserve as a military technician (dual status) who
after [the date of the enactment of this section] October 5,
1999, loses dual status is subject to paragraph (2) or (3), as
the case may be.
(2) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is eligible at
the time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity and is
age 60 or older at that time, the technician shall be separated
not later than 30 days after the date on which dual status is
lost.
(3)(A) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is not
eligible at the time dual status is lost for an unreduced
annuity or is under age 60 at that time, the technician shall
be offered the opportunity to--
(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a
position as a military technician (dual status); or
(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a
technician position.
(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status
technician, the technician--
(i) shall not be permitted, after [the end of the
one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this subsection] October 5, 2000, to apply for any
voluntary personnel action; and
(ii) shall be separated or retired--
(I) in the case of a technician first hired
as a military technician (dual status) on or
before February 10, 1996, not later than 30
days after becoming eligible for an unreduced
annuity and becoming 60 years of age; and
* * * * * * *
(b) Non-Dual Status Technicians.--(1) An individual who on
[the date of the enactment of this section] October 5, 1999, is
employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-
dual status technician and who on that date is eligible for an
unreduced annuity and is age 60 or older shall be separated not
later than [six months after the date of the enactment of this
section] April 5, 2000.
(2)(A) An individual who on [the date of the enactment of
this section] October 5, 1999, is employed by the Army Reserve
or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician and
who on that date is not eligible for an unreduced annuity or is
under age 60 shall be offered the opportunity to--
(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a
position as a military technician (dual status); or
(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a
technician position.
(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status
technician, the technician--
(i) shall not be permitted, after [the end of the
one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this subsection] October 5, 2000, to apply for any
voluntary personnel action; and
(ii) shall be separated or retired--
(I) in the case of a technician first hired
as a technician on or before February 10, 1996,
and who on [the date of the enactment of this
section] October 5, 1999, is a non-dual status
technician, not later than 30 days after
becoming eligible for an unreduced annuity and
becoming 60 years of age; and
(II) in the case of a technician first hired
as a technician after February 10, 1996, and
who on [the date of the enactment of this
section] October 5, 1999, is a non-dual status
technician, not later than one year after the
date on which dual status is lost.
(3) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the Air
Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician who is ineligible
for appointment to a military technician (dual status)
position, or who decides not to apply for appointment to such a
position, or who, [within six months of the date of the
enactment of this section] during the period beginning on
October 5, 1999, and ending on April 5, 2000, is not appointed
to such a position, shall for reduction-in-force purposes be in
a separate competitive category from employees who are military
technicians (dual status).
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1205--APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12005. Strength in grade: commissioned officers in grades below
brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) in
an active status
(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the authorized strength of
the Army and the Air Force in reserve commissioned officers in
an active status in each grade named in paragraph (2) is as
prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the
Air Force, respectively. A vacancy in any grade may be filled
by an authorized appointment in any lower grade. Medical
officers and dental officers shall be excluded in computing and
determining the authorized strengths under this subsection.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty or on
full-time National Guard duty for administration of
the reserves or the National Guard
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President
may suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525,
or 526 of this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the
operation of any provision of this section. Any such suspension
shall, if not sooner ended, end in the manner specified in
section 527 for a suspension under that section.
(d) Upon a determination by the Secretary of Defense that
such action is in the national interest, the Secretary may
increase the number of officers serving in any grade for a
fiscal year pursuant to subsection (a) by not more than the
percent authorized by the Secretary under section 115(c)(2) of
this title.
Sec. 12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on active
duty or on full-time National Guard duty for
administration of the reserves or the National
Guard
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President
may suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525,
or 526 of this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the
operation of any provision of this section. Any such suspension
shall, if not sooner ended, end in the manner specified in
section 527 for a suspension under that section.
(d) Upon a determination by the Secretary of Defense that
such action is in the national interest, the Secretary may
increase the number of enlisted members serving in any grade
for a fiscal year pursuant to subsection (a) by not more than
the percent authorized by the Secretary under section 115(c)(2)
of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1213--SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty
(a) * * *
(b) Service Credit.--A member ordered to funeral honors duty
under this section shall be required to perform a minimum of
two hours of such duty in order to receive--
(1) service credit under section 12732(a)(2)(E) of
this title; and
(2) if authorized by the Secretary concerned, the
allowance under section 435 of title 37 or compensation
at the rate prescribed in section 206 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1215--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans
Performance by a Reserve of funeral honors functions at the
funeral of a veteran (as defined in section 1491(h) of this
title) may not be considered to be a period of drill or
training, but may be performed as funeral honors duty under
section 12503 of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1223--RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12731. Age and service requirements
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) In the case of a person who completes the service
requirements of subsection (a)(2) during the period beginning
on October 5, 1994, and ending on [September 30, 2001] December
31, 2001, the provisions of subsection (a)(3) shall be applied
by substituting ``the last six years'' for ``the last eight
years''.
Sec. 12731a. Temporary special retirement qualification authority
(a) Retirement With at Least 15 Years of Service.--For the
purposes of section 12731 of this title, the Secretary
concerned may--
(1) during the period described in subsection (b),
determine to treat a member of the Selected Reserve of
a reserve component of the armed force under the
jurisdiction of that Secretary as having met the
service requirements of subsection (a)(2) of that
section and provide the member with the notification
required by subsection (d) of that section if the
member--
(A) as of [October 1, 1991] December 31,
2001, has completed at least 15, and less than
20, years of service computed under section
12732 of this title; or
(B) after that date and before [October 1,
2001] December 31, 2001, completes 15 years of
service computed under that section; and
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12733. Computation of retired pay: computation of years of service
For the purpose of computing the retired pay of a person
under this chapter, the person's years of service and any
fraction of such a year are computed by dividing 360 into the
sum of the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) One day for each point credited to the person
under clause (B), (C), or (D) of section 12732(a)(2) of
this title, [but not more than 60 days in any one year
of service before the year of service that includes
September 23, 1996, and not more than 75 days in any
subsequent year of service.] but not more than--
(A) 60 days in any one year of service before
the year of service that includes September 23,
1996;
(B) 75 days in the year of service that
includes September 23, 1996, and in any
subsequent year of service before the year of
service that includes the date of the enactment
of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001; and
(C) 90 days in the year of service that
includes the date of the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 and in any subsequent year of
service.
* * * * * * *
PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
STATUS LIST
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1409--CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS
LIST AND SELECTIVE EARLY REMOVAL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14701. Selection of officers for continuation on the reserve
active-status list
(a) Consideration for Continuation.--(1) [Upon application, a
reserve officer] A reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps who is required to be removed from the
reserve active-status list under section 14505, 14506, or 14507
of this title may, subject to the needs of the service and to
section 14509 of this title, be considered for continuation on
the reserve active-status list by a selection board convened
under section 14101(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14703. Authority to retain chaplains and officers in medical
specialties until specified age
(a) Retention.--Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 1407
of this title and except for officers referred to in sections
14503, 14504, 14505, and 14506 of this title and under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) the Secretary of the Air Force may, with the
officer's consent, retain in an active status any
reserve officer who is designated as a medical officer,
dental officer, [veterinary officer, Air Force nurse,
or chaplain or who is designated as a biomedical
sciences officer and is qualified for service as a
veterinarian, optometrist, or podiatrist.] Air Force
nurse, Medical Service Corps officer, biomedical
sciences officer, or chaplain.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1606--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED
RESERVE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16133. Time limitation for use of entitlement
(a) * * *
(b)(1) In the case of a person--
(A) who is separated from the Selected Reserve
because of a disability which was not the result of the
individual's own willful misconduct incurred on or
after the date on which such person became entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter; or
(B) who, on or after the date on which such person
became entitled to educational assistance under this
chapter ceases to be a member of the Selected Reserve
during the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and
ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001, by
reason of the inactivation of the person's unit of
assignment or by reason of involuntarily ceasing to be
designated as a member of the Selected Reserve pursuant
to section 10143(a) of this title,
the period for using entitlement prescribed by subsection (a)
shall be determined without regard to clause (2) of such
subsection.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions
officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime
critical medical skill shortages
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned
officer before [January 1, 2001] January 1, 2002.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1611--OTHER EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Sec.
[16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: officer candidates
pursuing degrees.]
16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: college tuition
assistance program.
[Sec. 16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: officer
candidates pursuing degrees]
Sec. 16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: college tuition
assistance program
(a) Authority for [Financial] College Tuition Assistance
Program.--The Secretary of the Navy may provide financial
assistance to [an eligible enlisted] a member of the Marine
Corps Reserve for expenses of the member while the member is
pursuing on a full-time basis at an institution of higher
education a program of education approved by the Secretary that
leads to--
(1) a baccalaureate degree in less than five academic
years; or
(2) a doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws
degree in not more than [three] four academic years.
(b) Eligibility.--(1) To be eligible for financial assistance
under this section, [an enlisted] a member of the Marine Corps
Reserve must--
(A) be [an officer candidate in] a member of the
Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program and have
successfully completed one six-week (or longer)
increment of military training required under that
program;
[(B) meet the applicable age requirement specified in
paragraph (2);]
[(C)] (B) be enrolled on a full-time basis in a
program of education referred to in subsection (a) at
any institution of higher education; and
[(D)] (C) enter into a written agreement with the
Secretary described in paragraph [(3)] (2).
[(2)(A) In the case of a member pursuing a baccalaureate
degree, the member meets the age requirements of this paragraph
if the member will be under 27 years of age on June 30 of the
calendar year in which the member is projected to be eligible
for appointment as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps
through the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program, except
that if the member has served on active duty, the member may,
on such date, be any age under 30 years that exceeds 27 years
by a number of months that is not more than the number of
months that the member served on active duty.
[(B) In the case of a member pursuing a doctor of
jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree, the member meets the
age requirements of this paragraph if the member will be under
31 years of age on June 30 of the calendar year in which the
member is projected to be eligible for appointment as a
commissioned officer in the Marine Corps through the Marine
Corps Platoon Leaders Class program, except that if the member
has served on active duty, the member may, on such date, be any
age under 35 years that exceeds 31 years by a number of months
that is not more than the number of months that the member
served on active duty.]
[(3)] (2) A written agreement referred to in paragraph (1)(D)
is an agreement between the member and the Secretary in which
the member agrees--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Failure To Complete Program.--(1) [A member] An enlisted
member who receives financial assistance under this section may
be ordered to active duty in the Marine Corps by the Secretary
to serve in an appropriate enlisted grade for such period as
the Secretary prescribes, but not for more than four years, if
the member--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
PART V--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1803--FACILITIES FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 18232. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) The term ``State'' means any of the States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and
possession of the United States and includes political
subdivisions and military units thereof and tax-
supported agencies therein.
(2) The term ``facility'' includes any (A) interest
in land, (B) [armory or other structure] armory,
readiness center, or other structure, and (C) storage
or other facility normally needed for the
administration and training of any unit of the reserve
components of the armed forces.
(3) [The term ``armory'' means] The terms ``armory''
and ``readiness center'' mean a structure that houses
one or more units of a reserve component and is used
for training and administering those units. It includes
a structure that is appurtenant to such a structure and
houses equipment used for that training and
administration.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 18236. Contributions to States; other use permitted by States
(a) * * *
(b) A contribution made for an armory or readiness center
under paragraph (4) or (5) of section 18233(a) of this title
may not exceed the sum of--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Part A--Funding Authorizations
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 112. ANNUAL REPORT ON B-2 BOMBER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.
[(a) Annual Reporting Requirement.--Not later than March 1 of
each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives a report that
sets forth the finding of the Secretary (as of January 1 of
such year) on each of the following matters:
[(1) Whether the performance milestones for the B-2
aircraft for the previous fiscal year for both
developmental test and evaluation and operational test
and evaluation (as contained in the Requirements
Correlation Matrix found in the user-defined
Operational Requirements Document (as contained in
Attachment B to a letter from the Secretary of Defense
to Congress dated October 14, 1993)) have been met.
[(2) Whether the B-2 aircraft has a high probability
of being able to perform its intended missions.
[(3) Whether any proposed modification to the
performance matrix referred to in paragraph (1) will be
provided in writing in advance to the committees.
[(4) Whether the cost reduction initiatives
established for the B-2 program can be achieved
(together with details of the savings to be realized).
[(5) Whether the quality assurance practices and
fiscal management controls of the prime contractor and
major subcontractors associated with the B-2 program
meet or exceed accepted United States Government
standards.
[(b) First Report.--The Secretary shall submit the first
annual report under subsection (a) not later than March 1,
1996.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Part D--Provisions Relating to Small and Small Disadvantaged Businesses
* * * * * * *
SEC. 834. TEST PROGRAM FOR NEGOTIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SMALL BUSINESS
SUBCONTRACTING PLANS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Test Program Period.--The test program authorized by
subsection (a) shall begin on October 1, 1990, unless Congress
adopts a resolution disapproving the test program. The test
program shall terminate on September 30, 2000.[.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Part B--Land Transactions
SEC. 2811. LAND CONVEYANCE AT MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, EL TORO,
CALIFORNIA, AND CONSTRUCTION OF FAMILY HOUSING AT
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) through (d), the
Secretary of the Navy may--
(1) convey to the County of Orange, California, or
its designee, or both, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to approximately 77 acres
of real property, including improvements thereon,
consisting of three severable parcels at Marine Corps
Air Station, El Toro, California; and
(2) accept monetary consideration for such property
and expend it for the construction [of additional
military family housing units at Marine Corps Air
Station, Tustin, California] and repair of roads, and
the development of Aerial Port of Embarkation
facilities, at Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar,
California.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE
CHAPTER 1--ORGANIZATION
Sec. 115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function
(a) * * *
(b) Service Credit.--A member ordered to funeral honors duty
under this section shall be required to perform a minimum of
two hours of such duty in order to receive--
(1) service credit under section 12732(a)(2)(E) of
title 10; and
(2) if authorized by the Secretary concerned, the
allowance under section 435 of title 37 or compensation
at the rate prescribed in section 206 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 508. Assistance for certain youth and charitable organizations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Authorized Services.--The services authorized to be
provided under subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) * * *
(2) Air transportation in support of Special Olympics
or any other youth or charitable organization
designated by the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
(d) Eligible Organizations.--The organizations eligible to
receive services under this section are as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(14) Reach For Tomorrow.
[(14)] (15) Any other youth or charitable
organization designated by the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for
civilian youth
(a) * * *
(b) Conduct of the Program.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge
Program in such States as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate[, except that Federal expenditures under the
program may not exceed $62,500,000 for any fiscal year].
(2) The Secretary shall carry out the National Guard
Challenge Program using funds appropriated directly to the
Secretary for the program and nondefense Federal funds made
available or transferred to the Secretary by other Federal
agencies to support the program. However, the amount of funds
appropriated directly to the Secretary of Defense and expended
for the program in a fiscal year may not exceed $62,500,000.
* * * * * * *
(m) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations to carry out the National Guard Challenge Program.
The regulations shall address at a minimum the following:
(1) The terms to be included in the program
agreements required by subsection (d).
(2) The qualifications for persons to participate in
the program, as required by subsection (e).
(3) The benefits authorized for program participants,
as required by subsection (f).
(4) The status of National Guard personnel assigned
to duty in support of the program.
(5) The conditions for the use of National Guard
facilities and equipment to carry out the program, as
required by subsection (h).
(6) The status of program participants, as described
in subsection (i).
(7) The procedures to be used by the Secretary when
communicating with States about the program.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Defense-Wide Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 142. MH-47E/MH-60K HELICOPTER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Required Testing.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
subsections (a) (2) and (b) of section 2366 of title 10, United
States Code, and the requirements of subsection (a) of section
2399 of such title--
(1) operational test and evaluation [and
survivability testing] of the MH-60K helicopter under
the MH-60K helicoptermodification program shall be
completed prior to full materiel release of the MH-60K helicopters for
operational use; and
(2) operational test and evaluation [and
survivability testing] of the MH-47E helicopter under
the MH-47E helicopter modification program shall be
completed prior to full materiel release of the MH-47E
helicopters for operational use.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLIV--PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--Active Forces Transition Enhancements
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4403. TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Active Force Drawdown Period.--For purposes of this
section, the active force drawdown period is the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on [October 1, 2001] December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Guard and Reserve Transition Initiatives
SEC. 4411. FORCE REDUCTION TRANSITION PERIOD DEFINED.
In this subtitle, the term ``force reduction transition
period'' means the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and
ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4416. FORCE REDUCTION PERIOD RETIREMENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Temporary Special Authority.--During the period referred
to in subsection (c), the Secretary concerned may grant a
member of the Selected Reserve under the age of 60 years the
annual payments provided for under this section if--
(1) as of October 1, 1991, that member has completed
at least 20 years of service computed under section
1332 of title 10, United States Code, or after that
date and before [October 1, 2001] December 31, 2001,
such member completes 20 years of service computed
under that section or section 12732;
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLIV--PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Job Training and Employment and Educational Opportunities
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4463. PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL LEAVE RELATING TO CONTINUING PUBLIC
AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Expiration.--The authority to grant a leave of absence
under subsection (a) shall expire on [September 30, 2001]
December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE
CHAPTER 3--BASIC PAY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 205. Computation: service creditable
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the periods of service of
a commissioned officer appointed under section [12209] 12203 of
title 10 after receiving financial assistance under section
16401 of such title that are counted under this section may not
include a period of service after January 1, 2000, that the
officer performed concurrently as [a member] an enlisted member
of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program and the
Marine Corps Reserve, except that service after that date that
the officer performed before commissioning (concurrently with
the period of service as a member of the Marine Corps Platoon
Leaders Class program) as an enlisted member on active duty or
as a member of the Selected Reserve may be so counted.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 209. Members of precommissioning programs
(a) Senior ROTC Members in Advanced Training.--(1) Except
when on active duty, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps who is selected for advanced training under
section 2104 of title 10 is entitled to a [subsistence
allowance of $200 a month] monthly subsistence allowance at a
rate prescribed under paragraph (2) beginning on the day he
starts advanced training and ending upon the completion of his
instruction under that section, but in no event shall any
member receive such pay for more than 30 months.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe by regulation
the monthly rates for subsistence allowances provided under
this section. The rate may not be less than $250 per month, but
may not exceed $600 per month. [Subsistence]
(3) A subsistence allowance under this section may not be
considered financial assistance requiring additional service
within the meaning of the third sentence of section 6(d)(1) of
the Military Selective Act (50 U.S.C App. 456(d)(1)).
(b) Senior ROTC Members Appointed in Reserves.--Except when
on active duty, a cadet or midshipman appointed under section
2107 of title 10 is entitled to a monthly subsistence allowance
[in the amount provided in subsection (a)] at a rate prescribed
under subsection (a)(2). A member enrolled in the first two
years of a four-year program is entitled to receive subsistence
for a maximum of twenty months. A member enrolled in the
advanced course is entitled to subsistence as prescribed for a
member enrolled under section 2104 of title 10 as prescribed in
subsection (a).
(c) Pay While Attending Training or Practice Cruise.--Each
cadet or midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps, while he is attending training or practice cruises under
chapter 103 of title 10 if the training or cruise is of at
least four weeks duration and must be completed before the
cadet or midshipman is commissioned, and each applicant for
membership in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps,
while he is attending field training or practice cruises to
satisfy the requirements of section 2104(b)(6)(B) of title 10
for admission to advanced training, is entitled, while so
attending, to pay at the rate prescribed for cadets and
midshipmen at the United States Military, Naval, and Air Force
Academies under section 203(c) of this title.
(d) Members of Marine Corps Officer Candidate Program.--
Except when serving on active duty, a member who is enrolled in
a Marine Corps officer candidate program which requires a
baccalaureate degree as a prerequisite to being commissioned as
an officer and who is not enrolled in a program established
under chapter 103 of title 10 or an academy established under
chapter 403, 603, or 903 of title 10 may be paid a subsistence
allowance at [the same rate as that prescribed by subsection
(a),] the monthly rate prescribed under subsection (a)(2) for a
member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps who is
selected for advanced training under section 2104 of title 10.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
Sec.
301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.
* * * * * * *
309. Special pay: enlistment bonus.
* * * * * * *
323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified in critical
military skill.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of
active duty
(a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1,
1989, and ending on [December 31, 2000,] December 31, 2001,
executesa written agreement to remain on active duty in
aviation service for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as
provided in this section.
* * * * * * *
(j) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``aviation service'' means service
performed by an officer (except a flight surgeon or
other medical officer) while holding an aeronautical
rating or designation or while in training to receive
an aeronautical rating or designation.
(2) The term ``operational flying duty'' has the
meaning given such term in [section 301a(a)(6)(A)]
section 301a(a)(6)(B) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302. Special pay: medical officers of the armed forces
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Reserve Medical Officers Special Pay.--(1) A reserve
medical officer described in paragraph (2) is entitled to
special pay at the rate of $450 a month for each month of
active duty, including active duty in the form of annual
training, active duty for training, and active duty for special
work.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302a. Special pay: optometrists
(a) * * *
(b) Retention Special Pay.--(1) Under regulations
prescribed under section 303a(a) of this title, [an officer
described in paragraph (2) may be paid] the Secretary concerned
may pay an officer described in paragraph (2) a retention
special pay of not more than $6,000 for any twelve-month period
during which the officer is not undergoing an internship or
initial residency training.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302c. Special pay: psychologists and nonphysician health care
providers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Nonphysician Health Care Providers.--The Secretary
concerned may authorize the payment of special pay at the rates
specified in subsection (b) to an officer who--
(1) is an officer in the Medical Services Corps of
the Army or Navy, a biomedical sciences officer in the
Air Force, an officer in the Army Medical Specialist
Corps, an officer of the Nurse Corps of the Army or
Navy, an officer of the Air Force designated as a
nurse, an officer in the Coast Guard or Coast Guard
Reserve designated as a physician assistant, or an
officer in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public
Health Service;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on
November 29, 1989, and ending on [December 31, 2000] December
31, 2001, executes a written agreement described in subsection
(c) to accept a commission as an officer and remain on active
duty for a period of not less than four years may, upon the
acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid
an accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary
concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists
(a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November
29, 1989, and ending on [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2001,
executes a written agreement to remain on active duty for a
period of one year or more may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special
pay in an amount not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.
* * * * * * *
(b) Covered Officers.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense may extend the special pay
authorized under subsection (a) to officers of the armed forces
who serve in a nursing specialty (other than as nurse
anesthetists) that--
(A) is designated by [the Secretary] the Secretary of
the military department concerned as critical to meet
requirements (whether such specialty is designated as
critical to meet wartime or peacetime requirements);
and
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302f. Special pay: reserve, recalled, or retained health care
officers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Special Rule for Reserve Medical Officer.--While a
reserve medical officer receives a special pay under section
302 of this title by reason of subsection (a), the officer
shall not be entitled to special pay under subsection (h) of
that section.]
(d) Exception.--While a reserve medical or dental officer
receives a special pay under section 302 or 302b of this title
by reason of subsection (a), the officer shall not be entitled
to special pay under section 302(h) or 302b(h) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in
critically short wartime specialties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under
this section may be entered into after [December 31, 2000]
December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 305a. Special pay: career sea pay
[(a) Under regulations prescribed by the President, a member
of a uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay is also
entitled, while on sea duty, to special pay at the applicable
rate under subsection (b).
[(b) The monthly rates for special pay under subsection (a)
are as follows:
[ENLISTED MEMBERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years of sea duty
-------------------------------------------------------
Pay grade 1 or
less Over 1 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 5 Over 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-4..................................................... $50 $60 $120 $150 $160 $160 $160
E-5..................................................... 50 60 120 150 170 315 325
E-6..................................................... 100 100 120 150 170 315 325
E-7..................................................... 100 100 120 175 190 350 350
E-8..................................................... 100 100 120 175 190 350 350
E-9..................................................... 100 100 120 175 190 350 350
-------------------------------------------------------
Over Over Over Over Over Over Over
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
-------------------------------------------------------
E-4..................................................... $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160
E-5..................................................... 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
E-6..................................................... 350 350 365 365 365 380 395
E-7..................................................... 375 390 400 400 410 420 450
E-8..................................................... 375 390 400 400 410 420 450
E-9..................................................... 375 390 400 400 410 420 450
-------------------------------------------------------
Over Over Over
14 16 18
------------------------
E-4..................................................... $160 $160 $160
E-5..................................................... 350 350 350
E-6..................................................... 410 425 450
E-7..................................................... 475 500 500
E-8..................................................... 475 500 520
E-9..................................................... 475 520 520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARRANT OFFICERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years of sea duty
-------------------------------------------------------
Pay grade 1 or
less Over 1 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 5 Over 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-1..................................................... $130 $135 $140 $150 $170 $175 $00
W-2..................................................... 150 150 150 150 170 260 265
W-3..................................................... 150 150 150 150 170 270 280
W-4..................................................... 150 150 150 150 170 290 310
W-5..................................................... 150 150 150 150 170 290 310
-------------------------------------------------------
Over Over Over Over Over Over Over
7 8 9 10 11 12 14
-------------------------------------------------------
W-1..................................................... $250 $270 $300 $325 $325 $340 $360
W-2..................................................... 265 270 310 340 340 375 400
W-3..................................................... 285 290 310 350 375 400 425
W-4..................................................... 310 310 310 350 375 400 450
W-5..................................................... 310 310 310 350 375 400 450
-------------------------------------------------------
Over Over Over
16 18 20
------------------------
W-1..................................................... $375 $375 $375
W-2..................................................... 400 400 400
W-3..................................................... 425 450 450
W-4..................................................... 450 500 500
W-5..................................................... 450 500 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years of sea duty
Pay grade -------------------------------------------------------
Over 3 Over 4 Over 5 Over 6 Over 7 Over 8 Over 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-1..................................................... $150 $160 $185 $190 $195 $205 $215
O-2..................................................... 150 160 185 190 195 205 215
O-3..................................................... 150 160 185 190 195 205 215
O-4..................................................... 185 190 200 205 215 220 220
O-5..................................................... 225 225 225 225 280 245 250
O-6..................................................... 225 230 230 240 255 265 280
-------------------------------------------------------
Over Over Over Over Over Over Over
10 11 12 14 16 18 20
-------------------------------------------------------
O-1..................................................... $225 $225 $240 $250 $260 $270 $280
O-2..................................................... 225 225 240 250 260 270 280
O-3..................................................... 225 225 240 260 270 280 290
O-4..................................................... 225 225 240 270 280 290 300
O-5..................................................... 260 265 265 285 300 315 340
O-6..................................................... 290 300 310 325 340 355 380
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(c) Under regulations prescribed by the President, a
member of a uniformed service who is entitled to career sea pay
under this section who has served 36 consecutive months of sea
duty (other than an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4
with more than five years of sea duty) is entitled to a career
sea pay premium of $100 a month for the thirty-seventh
consecutive month and each subsequent consecutive month of sea
duty served by such member.]
(a) Availability of Special Pay.--A member of a uniformed
service who is entitled to basic pay is also entitled, while on
sea duty, to career sea pay at a monthly rate prescribed by the
Secretary concerned, but not to exceed $750 per month.
(b) Eligibility for Premium.--A member of a uniformed service
entitled to career sea pay under subsection (a) who has served
36 consecutive months of sea duty is also entitled to a career
sea pay premium for the 37th consecutive month and each
subsequent consecutive month of sea duty served by the member.
The monthly amount of the premium shall be prescribed by the
Secretary concerned, but may not exceed $350 per month.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretaries concerned shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section. Regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of a military department shall be subject to
the approval of the Secretary of Defense.
(d) Definition of Sea Duty.--(1) In this section, the term
``sea duty'' means duty performed by a member--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 307. Special pay: special duty assignment pay for enlisted members
(a) An enlisted member who is entitled to basic pay and is
performing duties which have been designated under subsection
(b) as extremely difficult or as involving an unusual degree of
responsibility in a military skill may, in addition to other
pay or allowances to which he is entitled, be paid special duty
assignment pay at a monthly rate not to exceed [$275] $600. In
the case of a member who is serving as a military recruiter and
is eligible for special duty assignment pay under this
subsection on account of such duty, the Secretary concerned may
increase the monthly rate of special duty assignment pay for
the member to not more than $375.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty
reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after [December
31, 2000] December 31, 2001.
Sec. 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Termination of Authority.--No bonus shall be paid under
this section with respect to any enlistment or extension of an
initial period of active duty in the armed forces made after
[December 31, 2000] September 30, 2001.
Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected
Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under
this section to any enlisted member who, after [December 31,
2000] December 31, 2001, reenlists or voluntarily extends his
enlistment in a reserve component.
Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted
member who, after [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2001,
enlists in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an
armed force.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve
assigned to certain high priority units
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this
section for inactive duty performed after [December 31, 2000]
December 31, 2001.
Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after [December 31,
2000] December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to
an enlistment in the Army after [December 31, 2000] September
30, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or
voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of
the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person
for a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an
enlistment after [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2001.
Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under
this section to any person for an enlistment after [December
31, 2000] December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 309. Special pay: enlistment bonus
(a) Bonus Authorized; Bonus Amount.--A person who enlists in
an armed force for a period of at least two years may be paid a
bonus in an amount not to exceed $20,000. The bonus may be paid
in a single lump sum or in periodic installments.
(b) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) A member of the armed forces who
voluntarily, or because of the member's misconduct, does not
complete the term of enlistment for which a bonus was paid
under this section, or a member who is not technically
qualified in the skill for which the bonus was paid, if any
(other than a member who is not qualified because of injury,
illness, or other impairment not the result of the member's
misconduct), shall refund to the United States that percentage
of the bonus that the unexpired part of member's enlistment is
of the total enlistment period for which the bonus was paid.
(2) An obligation to reimburse the United States imposed
under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the
United States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
less than five years after the termination of an enlistment for
which a bonus was paid under this section does not discharge
the person receiving the bonus from the debt arising under
paragraph (1).
(c) Relation to Prohibition on Bounties.--The enlistment
bonus authorized by this section is not a bounty for purposes
of section 514(a) of title 10.
(d) Regulations.--This section shall be administered under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for the
armed forces under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense
and by the Secretary of Transportation for the Coast Guard when
the Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy.
(e) Duration of Authority.--No bonus shall be paid under this
section with respect to any enlistment in the armed forces made
before October 1, 2001, or after December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of
active duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before [December 31, 2000]
December 31, 2001, execute the required written agreement to
remain in active service.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before [December 31, 2000]
December 31, 2001, have been accepted for training for duty in
connection with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of
naval nuclear propulsion plants.
Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before [December 31, 2000]
December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified in a
critical military skill
(a) Retention Bonus Authorized.--An officer or enlisted
member of the armed forces who is serving on active duty and is
qualified in a designated critical military skill may be paid a
retention bonus as provided in this section if--
(1) in the case of an officer, the member executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty for at least
one year; or
(2) in the case of an enlisted member, the member
reenlists or voluntarily extends the member's
enlistment for a period of at least one year.
(b) Designation of Critical Skills.--(1) A designated
critical military skill referred to in subsection (a) is a
military skill designated as critical by the Secretary of
Defense, or by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to
the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the
Navy.
(2) The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of
Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy, shall notify Congress, in
advance, of each military skill to be designated by the
Secretary as critical for purposes of this section. The notice
shall be submitted at least 90 days before any bonus with
regard to that critical skill is offered under subsection (a)
and shall include a discussion of the necessity for the bonus,
the amount and method of payment of the bonus, and the
retention results that the bonus is expected to achieve.
(c) Payment Methods.--A bonus under this section may be paid
in a single lump sum or in periodic installments.
(d) Maximum Bonus Amount.--A member may enter into an
agreement under this section, or reenlist or voluntarily extend
the member's enlistment, more than once to receive a bonus
under thissection. However, a member may not receive a total of
more than $200,000 in payments under this section.
(e) Certain Members Ineligible.--A retention bonus may not be
provided under subsection (a) to a member of the armed forces
who--
(1) has completed more than 25 years of active duty;
or
(2) will complete the member's 25th year of active
duty before the end of the period of active duty for
which the bonus is being offered.
(f) Relationship to Other Incentives.--A retention bonus paid
under this section is in addition to any other pay and
allowances to which a member is entitled.
(g) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If an officer who has entered
into a written agreement under subsection (a) fails to complete
the total period of active duty specified in the agreement, or
an enlisted member who voluntarily or because of misconduct
does not complete the term of enlistment for which a bonus was
paid under this section, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Secretary of Transportation with respect to members of the
Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy,
may require the member to repay the United States, on a pro
rata basis and to the extent that the Secretary determines
conditions and circumstances warrant, all sums paid under this
section.
(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United
States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
less than five years after the termination of a written
agreement entered into under subsection (a) does not discharge
the member from a debt arising under paragraph (2).
(h) Annual Report.--Not later than February 15 of each year,
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation
shall submit to Congress a report--
(1) analyzing the effect, during the preceding fiscal
year, of the provision of bonuses under this section on
the retention of members qualified in the critical
military skills for which the bonuses were offered; and
(2) describing the intentions of the Secretary
regarding the continued use of the bonus authority
during the current and next fiscal years.
(i) Termination of Bonus Authority.--No bonus may be paid
under this section with respect to any reenlistment, or
voluntary extension of an enlistment, in the armed forces
entered into after December 31, 2001, and no agreement under
this section may be entered into after that date.
CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES
Sec.
401. Definitions.
402. Basic allowance for subsistence.
402a. Supplemental subsistence allowance for low-income members with
dependents.
* * * * * * *
411i. Travel and transportation allowances: parking expenses.
435. Funeral honors duty: allowance.
[435] 436. Per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 402. Basic allowance for subsistence
(a) * * *
(b) Rates of Allowance Based on Food Costs.--[(1) The monthly
rate of basic allowance for subsistence to be in effect for an
enlisted member for a year (beginning on January 1 of that
year) shall be the amount that is halfway between the following
amounts, which are determined by the Secretary of Agriculture
as of October 1 of the preceding year:
[(A) The amount equal to the monthly cost of a
moderate-cost food plan for a male in the United States
who is between 20 and 50 years of age.
[(B) The amount equal to the monthly cost of a
liberal food plan for a male in the United States who
is between 20 and 50 years of age.]
(1) The monthly rate of basic allowance for subsistence to be
in effect for an enlisted member for a year (beginning on
January 1 of that year) shall be equal to the sum of--
(A) the monthly rate of basic allowance for
subsistence that was in effect for an enlisted member
for the preceding year; plus
(B) the product of the monthly rate under
subparagraph (A) and the percentage increase in the
monthly cost of a liberal food plan for a male in the
United States who is between 20 and 50 years of age
over the preceding fiscal year, as determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture each October 1.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 402a. Supplemental subsistence allowance for low-income members
with dependents
(a) Supplemental Allowance Authorized.--(1) The Secretary
concerned may increase the basic allowance for subsistence to
which a member of the armed forces described in subsection (b)
is otherwise entitled under section 402 of this title by an
amount (in this section referred to as the ``supplemental
subsistence allowance'') designed to remove the member's
household from eligibility for benefits under the food stamp
program.
(2) The supplemental subsistence allowance may not exceed
$500 per month. In establishing the amount of the supplemental
subsistence allowance to be paid an eligible member under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall take into consideration the
amount of the basic allowance for housing that the member
receives under section 403 of this title or would otherwise
receive under such section, in the case of a member who is not
entitled to that allowance as a result of assignment to
quarters of the United States or a housing facility under the
jurisdiction of a uniformed service.
(3) In the case of a member described in subsection (b) who
establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary concerned that
the allotment of the member's household under the food stamp
program, calculated in the absence of the supplemental
subsistence allowance, would exceed the amount established by
the Secretary concerned under paragraph (2), the amount of the
supplemental subsistence allowance for the member shall be
equal to the lesser of the following:
(A) The value of that allotment.
(B) $500.
(b) Eligible Members.--(1) Subject to subsection (d), a
member of the armed forces is eligible to receive the
supplemental subsistence allowance if the Secretary concerned
determines that the member's income, together with the income
of the rest of the member's household (if any), is within the
highest income standard of eligibility, as then in effect under
section 5(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(c))
and without regard to paragraph (1) of such section, for
participation in the food stamp program.
(2) In determining whether a member meets the eligibility
criteria under paragraph (1), the Secretary--
(A) shall not take into consideration the amount of
the supplemental subsistence allowance payable under
this section; but
(B) shall take into consideration the amount of the
basic allowance for housing that the member receives
under section 403 of this title or would otherwise
receive under such section, in the case of a member who
is not entitled to that allowance as a result of
assignment to quarters of the United States or a
housing facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed
service.
(c) Application for Allowance.--To request the supplemental
subsistence allowance, a member shall submit an application to
the Secretary concerned in such form and containing such
information as the Secretary concerned may prescribe. A member
applying for the supplemental subsistence allowance shall
furnish such evidence regarding the member's satisfaction of
the eligibility criteria under subsection (b) as the Secretary
concerned may require.
(d) Effective Period.--The eligibility of a member to receive
the supplemental subsistence allowance terminates upon the
occurrence of any of the following events, even though the
member continues to meet the eligibility criteria described in
subsection (b):
(1) Payment of the supplemental subsistence allowance
for 12 consecutive months.
(2) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.
(3) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of
station.
(e) Reapplication.--Upon the termination of the effective
period of the supplemental subsistence allowance for a member,
or in anticipation of the imminent termination of the
allowance, a member may reapply for the allowance under
subsection (c) if the member continues to meet, or once again
meets, the eligibility criteria described in subsection (b).
(f) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than March 1 of each
year after 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report specifying the number of members of the armed
forces who received, at any time during the preceding year, the
supplemental subsistence allowance. In preparing the report,
the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Secretary of
Transportation. No report is required under this subsection
after March 1, 2006.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Secretary concerned'' means the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of
Transportation, with respect to the Coast Guard when it
is not operating as a service in the Navy.
(2) The terms ``allotment'' and ``household'' have
the meanings given those terms in section 3 of the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012).
(3) The term ``food stamp program'' means the program
established pursuant to section 4 of the Food Stamp Act
of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2013).
(h) Termination of Authority.--No supplemental subsistence
allowance may be made under this section after September 30,
2006.
Sec. 403. Basic allowance for housing
(a) * * *
(b) Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States.--
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall determine the costs of
adequate housing in a military housing area in the United
States for all members of the uniformed services entitled to a
basic allowance for housing in that area. The Secretary shall
base the determination upon the costs of adequate housing for
civilians with comparable income levels in the same area. In
determining what constitutes adequate housing for members, the
Secretary may not differentiate between members with dependents
in pay grades E-1 through E-4.
[(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the monthly amount of a basic
allowance for housing for an area of the United States for a
member of a uniformed service is equal to the difference
between--
[(A) the monthly cost of adequate housing in that
area, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, for
members of the uniformed services serving in the same
pay grade and with the same dependency status as the
member; and
[(B) 15 percent of the national average monthly cost
of adequate housing in the United States, as determined
by the Secretary, for members of the uniformed services
serving in the same pay grade and with the same
dependency status as the member.]
[(3) The rates of basic allowance for housing shall be
reduced as necessary to comply with this paragraph. The total
amount that may be paid for a fiscal year for the basic
allowance for housing under this subsection is the product of--
[(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such
allowance for the preceding fiscal year (as adjusted
under paragraph (5)); and
[(B) a fraction--
[(i) the numerator of which is the index of
the national average monthly cost of housing
for June of the preceding fiscal year; and
[(ii) the denominator of which is the index
of the national average monthly cost of housing
for June of the fiscal year before the
preceding fiscal year.]
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the monthly
amount of the basic allowance for housing for a member of a
uniformed service who is entitled to the allowance in a
military housing area in the United States at a rate based upon
the costs of adequate housing in the area determined under
paragraph (1).
(3) The total amount that may be paid for a fiscal year for
the basic allowance for housing under this subsection may not
be less than the product of--
(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such
allowance for the preceding fiscal year; and
(B) a fraction--
(i) the numerator of which is the index of
the national average monthly cost of housing
for June of the preceding fiscal year; and
(ii) the denominator of which is the index of
the national average monthly cost of housing
for June of the second preceding fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
[(5) In making a determination under paragraph (3) for a
fiscal year, the amount authorized to be paid for the preceding
fiscal year for the basic allowance for housing shall be
adjusted to reflect changes during the year for which the
determination is made in the number, grade distribution,
geographic distribution in the United States, and dependency
status of members of the uniformed services entitled to the
allowance from the number of such members during the preceding
fiscal year.]
(5) The Secretary shall establish a single monthly rate for
members of the uniformed services with dependents in pay grades
E-1 through E-4 in the same military housing area. The rate
shall be consistent with the rates paid to members in pay
grades other than pay grades E-1 through E-4 and shall be based
on the following:
(A) The average cost of a two-bedroom apartment in
that military housing area.
(B) One-half of the difference between the average
cost of a two-bedroom townhouse in that area and the
amount determined in subparagraph (A).
(6) So long as a member of a uniformed service retains
uninterrupted eligibility to receive a basic allowance for
housing within an area of the United States, the monthly amount
of the allowance for the member may not be reduced as a result
of changes in housing costs in the area[, changes in the
national average monthly cost of housing,] or the promotion of
the member.
* * * * * * *
(f) Ineligibility During Initial Field Duty or Sea Duty.--(1)
* * *
(2)(A) * * *
(B) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
the Secretary may authorize the payment of a basic allowance
for housing to a member of a uniformed service without
dependents who is serving in pay grade E-4 or E-5 and is
assigned to sea duty. In prescribing regulations under this
subparagraph, the Secretary concerned shall consider the
availability of quarters for members serving in pay grade E-4
or E-5.
* * * * * * *
(m) Members Paying Child Support.--(1) A member of a
uniformed service with dependents may not be paid a basic
allowance for housing at the with dependents rate solely by
reason of the payment of child support by the member if--
(A) * * *
(B) the member is assigned to sea duty, and elects
not to occupy assigned quarters for unaccompanied
personnel, unless the member is in a pay grade above
[E-4] E-3.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) In prescribing such conditions and allowances, the
Secretaries concerned shall provide that a member who is
performing travel under orders away from his designated post of
duty and who is authorized a per diem under clause (2) of
subsection (d) shall be paid for the meals portion of that per
diem in a cash amount at a rate that is not less than the rate
established under section 1011(a) of this title for meals sold
to members. The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect
to a member on field duty or sea duty (as defined in
regulations prescribed under [section 402(e)] section 403(f)(3)
of this title) or a member of a unit with respect to which the
Secretary concerned has determined that unit messing is
essential to the accomplishment of the unit's training and
readiness.
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the
Secretaries concerned and as provided in paragraph (2), a
member who--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) is involuntarily separated from active duty
during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001,
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
(2)(A) * * *
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty
during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary lodging
expenses
[(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries
concerned, a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to
make a change of permanent station--
[(1) from any duty station to a duty station in the
United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska);
[(2) from a duty station in the United States (other
than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station outside the
United States or in Hawaii or Alaska; or
[(3) in the case of an enlisted member who is
reporting to the member's first permanent duty station,
from the member's home of record or initial technical
school to that first permanent duty station;
shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses actually
incurred by the member and the member's dependents while
occupying temporary quarters incident to that change of
permanent station. In the case of a change of permanent station
described in paragraph (1) or (3), the period for which such
expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed 10 days.
In the case of a change of permanent station described in
paragraph (2), the period for which such expenses are to be
paid or reimbursed may not exceed five days and such payment or
reimbursement may be provided only for expenses incurred before
leaving the United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).]
(a) Payment or Reimbursement of Subsistence Expenses.--(1)
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a
member of a uniformed service who is ordered to make a change
of permanent station described in paragraph (2) shall be paid
or reimbursed for subsistence expenses of the member and the
member's dependents for the period (subject to subsection (c))
for which the member and dependents occupy temporary quarters
incident to that change of permanent station.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to the following:
(A) A permanent change of station from any duty
station to a duty station in the United States (other
than Hawaii or Alaska).
(B) A permanent change of station from a duty station
in the United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska) to a
duty station outside the United States or in Hawaii or
Alaska.
(C) In the case of an enlisted member who is
reporting to the member's first permanent duty station,
the change from the member's home of record or initial
technical school to that first permanent duty station.
(b) Payment in Advance.--The Secretary concerned may make any
payment for subsistence expenses to a member under this section
in advance of the member actually incurring the expenses. The
amount of an advance payment made to a member shall be computed
on the basis of the Secretary's determination of the average
number of days that members and their dependents occupy
temporary quarters under the circumstances applicable to the
member and the member's dependents.
(c) Maximum Payment Period.--(1) In the case of a change of
permanent station described in subparagraph (A) or (C) of
subsection (a)(2), the period for which subsistence expenses
are to be paid or reimbursed under this section may not exceed
10 days.
(2) In the case of a change of permanent station described in
subsection (a)(2)(B)--
(A) the period for which such expenses are to be paid
or reimbursed under this section may not exceed five
days; and
(B) such payment or reimbursement may be provided
only for expenses incurred before leaving the United
States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).
[(b)] (d) Daily Subsistence Rates.--Regulations prescribed
under subsection (a) shall prescribe average daily subsistence
rates for purposes of this section for the member and for each
dependent. Such rates may not exceed the maximum per diem rates
prescribed under section 404(d) of this title for the area
where the temporary quarters are located.
[(c)] (e) Maximum Daily Payment.--A member may not be paid or
reimbursed more that $110 a day under this section.
[Sec. 405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while on duty
outside the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska
[(a) Without regard to the monetary limitation of this title,
the Secretaries concerned may authorize the payment of a per
diem, considering all elements of the cost of living to members
of the uniformed services under their jurisdiction and their
dependents including the cost of quarters, subsistence, and
other necessary incidental expenses, to such a member who is on
duty outside of the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska,
whether or not he is in a travel status. However, dependents
may not be considered in determining the per diem allowance for
a member in a travel status.
[(b) Housing cost and allowance may be disregarded in
prescribing a station cost of living allowance under this
section.]
Sec. 405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while on duty
outside the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska
(a) Per Diem Authorized.--Without regard to the monetary
limitation of this title, the Secretary concerned may pay a per
diem to a member of the uniformed services who is on duty
outside of the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska, whether or
not the member is in a travel status. The Secretary may pay the
per diem in advance of the accrual of the per diem.
(b) Determination of Per Diem.--In determining the per diem
to be paid under this section, the Secretary concerned shall
consider all elements of the cost of living to members of the
uniformed services under the Secretary's jurisdiction and their
dependents, including the cost of quarters, subsistence, and
other necessary incidental expenses. However, dependents may
not be considered in determining the per diem allowance for a
member in a travel status.
(c) Treatment of Housing Cost and Allowance.--Housing cost
and allowance may be disregarded in prescribing a station cost
of living allowance under this section.
Sec. 406. Travel and transportation allowances: dependents; baggage and
household effects
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a member of a
uniformed service who is ordered to make a change of permanent
station is entitled to transportation in kind, reimbursement
therefor, or a monetary allowance in place of the cost of
transportation, plus a per diem, for the member's dependents at
rates prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, but not more
than the rate authorized under section 404(d) of this title.
The Secretary concerned may also reimburse the member for
mandatory pet quarantine fees for household pets, but not to
exceed $275 per change of station, when the member incurs the
fees incident to such change of station.
(2)(A) * * *
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty
during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the
Secretaries concerned, a member who--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) is involuntarily separated from active duty
during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001,
* * * * * * *
Sec. 407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Dislocation Allowance Rates.--(1) The amount of the
dislocation allowance to be paid under this section to a member
shall be based on the member's pay grade and dependency status
at the time the member becomes entitled to the allowance,
except that the Secretary concerned may not differentiate
between members with dependents in pay grades E-1 through E-5 .
(2) The initial rate for the dislocation allowance, for each
pay grade and dependency status, shall be equal to the rate in
effect for that pay grade and dependency status on December 31,
1997, as adjusted by the average percentage increase in the
rates of basic pay for calendar year 1998. Effective on the
same date that the monthly rates of basic pay for members are
increased for a subsequent calendar year, the Secretary of
Defense shall adjust the rates for the dislocation allowance
for that calendar year by the percentage equal to the average
percentage increase in the rates of basic pay for that calendar
year, except that the Secretary concerned may not differentiate
between members with dependents in pay grades E-1 through E-5.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 411i. Travel and transportation allowances: parking expenses
(a) Reimbursement Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may
reimburse a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine
Corps described in subsection (b) for expenses incurred by the
member in parking a privately owned vehicle being used by the
member to commute to the member's place of duty.
(b) Eligible Members.--A member referred to in subsection
(a) is a member who is--
(1) assigned to duty as a recruiter for any of the
armed forces;
(2) assigned to duty with a military entrance
processing facility of the armed forces; or
(3) detailed for instructional and administrative
duties at any institution where a unit of the Senior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps is maintained.
(c) Inclusion of Certain Civilian Employees.--The Secretary
of Defense may extend the reimbursement authority provided by
subsection (a) to civilian employees of the Department of
Defense whose employment responsibilities include performing
activities related to the duties specified in subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 414. Personal money allowance
(a) Allowance for Officers Serving in Certain Ranks or
Positions.--In addition to other pay or allowances authorized
by this title, an officer who is entitled to basic pay is
entitled to a personal money allowance of--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Allowance for Certain Naval Officers.--In addition to
other pay or allowances authorized by law, an officer who is
serving in one of the following positions is entitled to the
amount set forth for that position, to be paid annually out of
naval appropriations for pay, and to be spent in his discretion
for the contingencies of his position--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Allowance for Senior Enlisted Members.--In addition to
other pay or allowances authorized by this title, a
noncommissioned officer is entitled to a personal money
allowance of $2,000 a year while serving as the Sergeant Major
of the Army, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, the
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, the Sergeant Major of
the Marine Corps, or the Master Chief Petty Officer of the
Coast Guard.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 415. Uniform allowance: officers; initial allowance
(a) Subject to subsection (b), an officer of an armed force
is entitled to an initial allowance of not more than [$200]
$400 as reimbursement for the purchase of required uniforms and
equipment--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 416. Uniform allowance: officers; additional allowances
(a) In addition to the allowance provided by section 415 of
this title, a reserve officer of an armed force, an officer of
the Army or the Air Force without specification of component,
or a regular officer of an armed force appointed under section
2106 or 2107 of title 10 is entitled to not more than [$100]
$200 as reimbursement for additional uniforms and equipment
required on that duty, for each time that the officer enters on
active duty for a period of more than 90 days.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of members
stationed overseas
(a) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, a member of a uniformed service who--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) has a dependent child who is under 23 years of
age attending a school in the continental United States
[for the purpose of obtaining a secondary or
undergraduate college education] for the purpose of
obtaining a formal education, may be paid the allowance
set forth in subsection (b) if he otherwise qualifies
for such allowance.
(b)(1) A member described in subsection (a) may be paid a
transportation allowance for each unmarried dependent child,
who is under 23 years of age and is attending a school in the
continental United States [for the purpose of obtaining a
secondary or undergraduate college education] for the purpose
of obtaining a formal education, of one annual trip between the
school being attended and the member's duty station outside the
continental United States and return. The allowance authorized
by this section may be transportation in kind or reimbursement
therefor, as prescribed by the Secretaries concerned. However,
the transportation authorized by this section may not be paid a
member for a child attending a school in the continental United
States for the purpose of obtaining a secondary education if
the child is eligible to attend a secondary school for
dependents that is located at or in the vicinity of the duty
station of the member and is operated under the Defense
Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 921 et seq.).
(f) [In this section, the term] In this section:
(1) The term ``continental United States'' means the
48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
(2) The term ``formal education'' means the
following:
(A) A secondary education.
(B) An undergraduate college education.
(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-
time basis at an institution of higher
education (as defined in section 101 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)).
(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-
time basis at a post-secondary vocational
institution (as defined in section 102(c) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002(c))).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 435. Funeral honors duty: allowance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Full Compensation.--Except for expenses reimbursed
under subsection (c) of section 12503 of title 10 or subsection
(c) of section 115 of title 32, the allowance paid under this
section is the only monetary compensation authorized to be paid
a member for the performance of funeral honors duty pursuant to
such section, regardless of the grade in which the member is
serving, and shall constitute payment in full to the member.]
[Sec. 435.] Sec. 436. Per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous
deployments
(a) Per Diem Required.--The Secretary of the military
department concerned shall pay a high-deployment per diem
allowance to a member of the armed forces under the Secretary's
jurisdiction for each day on which the member (1) is deployed,
and (2) has, as of that day, been deployed 251 days or more out
of the preceding 365 days.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19--ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1012. Disbursement and accounting: pay of enlisted members of the
National Guard
Amounts appropriated for the pay, under subsections (a),
(b), and (d) of section 206, section 301(f), [section
402(b)(3)] section 402(e), and section 1002 of this title, of
enlisted members of the Army National Guard of the United
States or the Air National Guard of the United States for
attending regular periods of duty and instruction shall be
disbursed and accounted for by the Secretary of Defense. All
such disbursements shall be made for 3-month periods for units
of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, and on pay
rolls prepared and authenticated as prescribed in those
regulations.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 503(c) OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1991
SEC. 503. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES RELATING TO MEMBERS
INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Storage of Household Effects.--(1) The Secretary of a
military department shall exercise the authority provided by
section 406 of title 37, United States Code, to provide
nontemporary storage of baggage and household effects for a
period not longer than one year in the case of individuals who
are involuntarily separated during the period beginning on
October 1, 1990, and ending on [September 30, 2001] December
31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
----------
DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION ACT OF 1978
administration of defense dependents' education system
Sec. 1403. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The Director shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) perform such other functions as may be required
or delegated by the Secretary of Defense or the [the]
Assistant Secretary of Defense designated under
subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
school system for dependents in overseas areas
Sec. 1407. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall establish and
operate a school system for dependents in overseas areas as
part of the defense dependents' education system.
* * * * * * *
(c) Continuation of Enrollment for Certain Dependents of
Members of the Armed Forces Involuntarily Separated.--(1) A
member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty on September
30, 1990, who is involuntarily separated during the period
beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on [September 30,
2001] December 31, 2001, and who has a dependent described in
paragraph (2) who is enrolled in a school of the defense
dependents' education system (or a school for which tuition is
provided under subsection (b)) on the date of that separation
shall be eligible to enroll or continue the enrollment of that
dependent at that school (or another school serving the same
community) for the final year of secondary education of that
dependent in the same manner as if the member were still on
active duty.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 811 OF THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF
1996
SEC. 811. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
(a) In General.--With funds made available pursuant to
subsection (c)--
(1) the Attorney General shall--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) increase personnel to support
counterterrorism activities; [and]
(2) the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation may expand the combined DNA
Identification System (CODIS) to include Federal crimes
and crimes committed in the District of Columbia[.];
and
(3) the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall expand the combined DNA
Identification System (CODIS) to include analyses of
DNA samples collected from members of the Armed Forces
convicted of a qualifying military offense in
accordance with section 1563 of title 10, United States
Code.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 210304 OF THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF
1994
SEC. 210304. INDEX TO FACILITATE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCHANGE OF DNA
IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
(a) Establishment of Index.--The Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation may establish an index of--
(1) DNA identification records of persons convicted
of crimes;
(2) analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime
scenes;
(3) analyses of DNA samples recovered from
unidentified human remains; [and]
(4) analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed
from relatives of missing persons[.]; and
(5) analyses of DNA samples collected from members of
the Armed Forces convicted of a qualifying military
offense in accordance with section 1563 of title 10,
United States Code.
(b) Information.--The index described in subsection (a)
shall include only information on DNA identification records
and DNA analyses that are--
(1) * * *
(2) prepared by laboratories, and DNA analysts, that
undergo[, at regular intervals of not to exceed 180
days,] semiannual external proficiency testing by a DNA
proficiency testing program meeting the standards
issued under section 210303; and
* * * * * * *
(d) Expungement of Records of Military Offenders.--If the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation receives a
notice transmitted under section 1563(d)(2) of title 10, United
States Code, the Director shall promptly expunge from the index
described in subsection (a) any DNA analysis furnished under
section 1563(d)(1) of such title with respect to the person
described in the notice.
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. REFORM OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Transitional Entitlement to Allowance.--
(1) Enlisted members.--
(A) Types of entitlement.--An enlisted member
is entitled to the basic allowance for
subsistence, on a daily basis, [of] under one
or more of the following circumstances:
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 603. CONSOLIDATION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS, VARIABLE
HOUSING ALLOWANCE, AND OVERSEAS HOUSING ALLOWANCES.
(a) * * *
(b) Transition to Basic Allowance for Housing.--The
Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a plan to
incrementally manage the rate of growth of the various
components of the basic allowance for housing authorized by
section 403 of title 37, United States Code (as amended by
subsection (a)), during atransition period of not more than
[six years] eight years. During the transition period, the Secretary
may continue to use the authorities provided under sections 403, 403a,
405(b), and 427(a) of title 37, United States Code (as in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act), but subject to such
modifications as the Secretary considers necessary, to provide
allowances for members of the uniformed services.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 731. IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND ACCESS FOR MEMBERS
ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN DUTY LOCATIONS FAR FROM SOURCES
OF CARE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Temporary Authority for Managed Care Expansion to Members
on Active Duty at Certain Remote Locations.--(1) A member of
the [Armed Forces] uniformed services described in subsection
(c) is entitled to receive care under the Civilian Health and
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. In connection with
such care, the Secretary of Defense shall waive the obligation
of the member to pay a deductible, copayment, or annual fee
that would otherwise be applicable under that program for care
provided to the members under the program. A dependent of the
member, as described in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of
section 1072(2) of title 10, United States Code, who is
residing with the member shall have the same entitlement to
care and to waiver of charges as the member.
(2) A member or dependent of the member, as the case may be,
who is entitled under paragraph (1) to receive health care
services under CHAMPUS shall receive such care from a network
provider under the TRICARE program if such a provider is
available in the service area of the member.
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the other
administering Secretaries in the administration of this
subsection.
(c) Eligible Members.--A member referred to in subsection (b)
is a member of the [Armed Forces] uniformed services on active
duty who--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Duty Assignments Covered.--A duty assignment referred to
in subsection (c)(1) means any of the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Permanent duty as a full-time adviser to a unit
of a reserve component of the [Armed Forces] uniformed
services.
* * * * * * *
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The terms ``uniformed services'' and
``administering Secretaries'' have the meanings given
those terms in section 1072 of title 10, United States
Code.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Other Matters
SEC. 1221. DEFENSE BURDENSHARING.
(a) Efforts To Increase Allied Burdensharing.--The President
shall seek to have each nation that has cooperative military
relations with the United States (including security
agreements, basing arrangements, or mutual participation in
multinational military organizations or operations) take one or
more of the following actions:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for foreign
assistance (to promote democratization, governmental
accountability and transparency, economic stabilization
and development, defense economic conversion, respect
for the rule of law and internationally recognized
human rights, and humanitarian relief efforts)[)] by 10
percent or to provide such foreign assistance at an
annual rate that is not less than one percent of its
gross domestic product, by September 30, 1999.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Part B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pay
* * * * * * *
SEC. 614. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PAY FOR NURSE ANESTHETISTS TO OTHER
NURSING SPECIALTIES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Implementation of Amendment.--The Secretary of Defense
may not implement subsection (b)(2) of section 302e of title
37, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), unless the
Secretary submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives a report--
[(1) justifying the need of the departments for the
authority provided in such subsection; and
[(2) describing the manner in which that authority
will be implemented.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 617. RETENTION BONUS FOR OPTOMETRISTS.
(a) * * *
[(b) Implementation of Amendment.--The Secretary of Defense
may not implement subsection (b) of section 302a of title 37,
United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), unless the
Secretary submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives a report--
[(1) justifying the need of the military departments
for the authority provided in such subsection; and
[(2) describing the manner in which that authority
will be implemented.]
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
SEC. 601. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE IN MILITARY BASIC PAY AND REFORM OF
BASIC PAY RATES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Reform of Basic Pay Rates.--Effective on July 1, 2000,
the rates of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed
services within each pay grade are as follows:
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............. 6,594.30 6,810.30 6,953.10 6,993.30 7,171.80
O-7............. 5,479.50 5,851.80 5,851.80 5,894.40 6,114.60
O-6............. 4,061.10 4,461.60 4,754.40 4,754.40 4,772.40
O-5............. 3,248.40 3,813.90 4,077.90 4,127.70 4,291.80
O-4............. 2,737.80 3,333.90 3,556.20 3,606.00 3,812.40
O-3 \3\......... 2,544.00 2,884.20 3,112.80 3,364.80 3,525.90
O-2 \3\......... 2,218.80 2,527.20 2,910.90 3,009.00 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 1,926.30 2,004.90 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............. 7,471.50 7,540.80 7,824.60 7,906.20 8,150.10
O-7............. 6,282.00 6,475.80 6,669.00 6,863.10 7,471.50
O-6............. 4,976.70 5,004.00 5,004.00 5,169.30 5,791.20
O-5............. 4,291.80 4,420.80 4,659.30 4,971.90 5,286.00
O-4............. 3,980.40 4,252.50 4,464.00 4,611.00 4,758.90
O-3 \3\......... 3,702.60 3,850.20 4,040.40 4,139.10 4,139.10
O-2 \3\......... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $10,655.1 $10,707.6 $10,930.2 $11,318.40
0 0 0
O-9............. 0.00 9,319.50 9,453.60 9,647.70 9,986.40
O-8............. 8,503.80 8,830.20 9,048.00 9,048.00 9,048.00
O-7............. 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 8,025.60
O-6............. 6,086.10 6,381.30 6,549.00 6,719.10 7,049.10
O-5............. 5,436.00 5,583.60 5,751.90 5,751.90 5,751.90
O-4............. 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70
O-3 \3\......... 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10
O-2 \3\......... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, the actual
basic pay for commissioned officers in grades O-7 through O-10 may not
exceed the rate of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule and the
actual basic pay for all other officers, including warrant officers,
may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Chairman or Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army,
Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant
of the Marine Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, basic pay for
this grade is calculated to be [$12,441.00] $12,488.70, regardless of
cumulative years of service computed under section 205 of title 37,
United States Code.
\3\ This table does not apply to commissioned officers in the grade O-1,
O-2, or O-3 who have been credited with over 4 years of active duty
service as an enlisted member or warrant officer.
* * * * * * *
ENLISTED MEMBERS \1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \2\.......... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E-8.............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E-7.............. 1,765.80 1,927.80 2,001.00 2,073.00 2,147.70
E-6.............. 1,518.90 1,678.20 1,752.60 1,824.30 1,899.30
E-5.............. 1,332.60 1,494.00 1,566.00 1,640.40 1,714.50
E-4.............. 1,242.90 1,373.10 1,447.20 1,520.10 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,171.50 1,260.60 1,334.10 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
E-1.............. \3\ 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \2\.......... $0.00 $3,015.30 $3,083.40 $3,169.80 $3,271.50
E-8.............. 2,528.40 2,601.60 2,669.70 2,751.60 2,840.10
E-7.............. 2,220.90 2,294.10 2,367.30 2,439.30 2,514.00
E-6.............. 1,973.10 2,047.20 2,118.60 2,191.50 2,244.60
E-5.............. 1,789.50 1,861.50 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
E-4.............. 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
E-1.............. 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \2\.......... $3,373.20 $3,473.40 $3,609.30 $3,744.00 $3,915.90
E-8.............. 2,932.50 3,026.10 3,161.10 3,295.50 3,483.60
E-7.............. 2,588.10 2,660.40 2,787.60 2,926.20 3,134.40
E-6.............. 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,285.70 2,285.70 2,285.70
E-5.............. 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
E-4.............. 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,123.20 1,127.40
E-1.............. 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, the actual
basic pay for enlisted members may not exceed the rate of pay for
level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Sergeant Major
of the Army, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Chief Master
Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, or
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this
grade is [$4,701.00] $4,719.00, regardless of cumulative years of
service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code.
\3\ In the case of members in the grade E-1 who have served less than 4
months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
* * * * * * *
SEC. 703. PROVISION OF DOMICILIARY AND CUSTODIAL CARE FOR CERTAIN
CHAMPUS BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Continuation of Care.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary may provide payment for domiciliary or
custodial care services provided to an eligible beneficiary for
which payment was discontinued by reason of section 1086(d) of
title 10, United States Code, and subsequently reestablished
under other legal authority. Such payment is authorized for the
period beginning on the date of discontinuation of payment for
domiciliary or custodial care services and ending on the date
of reestablishment of payment for such services.
* * * * * * *
(e) Cost Limitation.--The total amount paid for services for
eligible beneficiaries under subsection (a) for a fiscal year
(together with the costs of administering the authority under
that subsection) shall be included in the expenditures limited
by section 1079(a)(17)(B) of title 10, United States Code.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 706. HEALTH CARE AT FORMER UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS STATIONED AT CERTAIN REMOTE
LOCATIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Eligibility.--A member of the [Armed Forces] uniformed
services (as defined in section 1072(1) of title 10, United
States Code) is eligible for health care under subsection (a)
if the member is a member described in section 731(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1811; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note).
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1035. REPORT ON ASSESSMENTS OF READINESS TO EXECUTE THE NATIONAL
MILITARY STRATEGY.
(a) Report.--[Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act] Not later than April 1 each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report in unclassified form assessing the effect of continued
operations in the Balkans region on--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Matters To Be Included.--[The] Each report under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Consultation.--In preparing [the] a report under this
section, the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commanders of the
unified commands, the Secretaries of the military departments,
and the heads of the combat support agencies and other such
entities within the Department of Defense as the Secretary
considers necessary.
* * * * * * *
----------
STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
* * * * * * *
SEC. 503. STREAMLINED SELECTIVE RETENTION PROCESS FOR REGULAR OFFICERS.
(a) Repeal of Requirement for Duplicative Board.--Section
1183 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1182(c) of such title
is amended by striking out ``send the record of its proceedings
to a board of review convened under section 1183 of this
title'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``recommend to the
Secretary concerned that the officer not be retained on active
duty''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 645. RECOVERY, CARE, AND DISPOSITION OF REMAINS OF MEDICALLY
RETIRED MEMBER WHO DIES DURING HOSPITALIZATION THAT
BEGINS WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Repeal of Obsolete Terminology.--Paragraph (1) of such
section is amended by striking out ``, or [a member] member of
an armed force without component,''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
SEC. 701. DEPENDENTS' DENTAL PROGRAM.
(a) Premium Increase.--(1) Section 1076a(b)(2) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Limitation on Reduction of Benefits.--Section 1076a of
such title is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Health Care Services for Medicare-Eligible Department of
Defense Beneficiaries
* * * * * * *
SEC. 722. TRICARE AS SUPPLEMENT TO MEDICARE DEMONSTRATION.
(a) In General.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary shall commence the demonstration project
not later than January 1, 2000, and shall terminate the
demonstration project not later than [December 31, 2002]
December 31, 2003.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 723. IMPLEMENTATION OF REDESIGN OF PHARMACY SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Not later than [October 1, 1999] April 1,
2001, the Secretary of Defense shall implement, with respect to
eligible individuals described in subsection (e) [who reside in
an area selected under subsection (f )], the redesign of the
pharmacy system under TRICARE (including the mail-order and
retail pharmacy benefit under TRICARE) to incorporate ``best
business practices'' of the private sector in providing
pharmaceuticals, as developed under the plan described in
section 703.
[(b) Collection of Premiums and Other Charges.--The Secretary
of Defense may collect from eligible individuals described in
subsection (e) who participate in the redesigned pharmacy
system any premiums, deductibles, copayments, or other charges
that the Secretary would otherwise collect from individuals
similar to such individuals.]
(b) Program Requirements.--The same coverage for pharmacy
services and the same procedures for cost sharing and
reimbursement as are applicable under section 1086 of title 10,
United States Code, shall apply with respect to the program
required by subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit two reports on the
results of the evaluation under subsection (c), together with
the evaluation, to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives. The first report shall be submitted not later
than [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2001, and the second
report shall be submitted not later than [December 31, 2002]
December 31, 2003.
(e) Eligible Individuals.--(1) An individual is eligible to
participate under this section if the individual is a member or
former member of the uniformed services described in section
1074(b) of title 10, United States Code, a dependent of the
member described in section 1076(a)(2)(B) or 1076(b) of that
title, or a dependent of a member of the uniformed services who
died while on active duty for a period of more than 30 days,
who--
(A) * * *
(B) is entitled to hospital insurance benefits under
part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395c et seq.); and
(C) except as provided in paragraph (2), is enrolled
in the supplemental medical insurance program under
part B of such title XVIII (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.)[;
and].
[(D) resides in an area selected by the Secretary
under subsection (f ).]
(2) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply in the case of an
individual who [at the time of attaining the age of 65 lived
within 100 miles of the catchment area of a military medical
treatment facility] before April 1, 2001, has attained the age
of 65 and did not enroll in the program described in such
paragraph.
[(f ) Areas of Implementation.--(1) The Secretary shall carry
out the implementation of the redesign of the pharmacy system
under TRICARE in two separate areas selected by the Secretary.
[(2) The areas selected by the Secretary under paragraph (1)
shall be as follows:
[(A) One area shall be an area outside the catchment
area of a military medical treatment facility in
which--
[(i) no eligible organization has a contract
in effect under section 1876 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm) and no
Medicare+Choice organization has a contract in
effect under part C of title XVIII of that Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-21); or
[(ii) the aggregate number of enrollees with
an eligible organization with a contract in
effect under section 1876 of that Act or with a
Medicare+Choice organization with a contract in
effect under part C of title XVIII of that Act
is less than 2.5 percent of the total number of
individuals in the area who are entitled to
hospital insurance benefits under part A of
title XVIII of that Act.
[(B) The other area shall be an area outside the
catchment area of a military medical treatment facility
in which--
[(i) at least one eligible organization has a
contract in effect under section 1876 of that
Act or one Medicare+Choice organization has a
contract in effect under part C of title XVIII
of that Act; and
[(ii) the aggregate number of enrollees with
an eligible organization with a contract in
effect under section 1876 of that Act or with a
Medicare+Choice organization with a contract in
effect under part C of title XVIII of that Act
exceeds 10 percent of the total number of
individuals in the area who are entitled to
hospital insurance benefits under part A of
title XVIII of that Act.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 724. COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS AND TRICARE PHARMACY REDESIGN.
Not later than March 31, 2003, the Comptroller General shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives
a report containing a comprehensive comparative analysis of the
FEHBP demonstration project conducted under section 1108 of
title 10, United States Code (as added by section 721), the
TRICARE Senior Supplement under section 722, the demonstration
project conducted under section 1896 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395ggg), and the redesign of the TRICARE pharmacy
system under section 723. The comprehensive analysis shall
incorporate the findings of the evaluation submitted under
section 723(c) and the report submitted under subsection ( j)
of such section 1108.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
* * * * * * *
SEC. 802. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSISTANCE UNDER THE PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 2415 of such title is
amended by striking out ``Defense Contract [Administrative]
Administration Services'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Department of Defense contract administrative services''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1101. DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY EXPERIMENTAL
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR TECHNICAL
PERSONNEL.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Period of Program.--(1) The program authorized under this
section shall terminate at the end of the 5-year period
referred to in subsection (a).
(2) After the termination of the program--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) no period of service may be extended under
[subsection (c)(1)] subsection (c)(2).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1896 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MILITARY RETIREES
Sec. 1896. (a) * * *
(b) Demonstration Project.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Duration.--The administering Secretaries shall
conduct the demonstration project during the [3-year
period beginning on January 1, 1998] period beginning
on January 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2003.
* * * * * * *
(6) Utilization review procedures.--The Secretary of
Defense shall develop and implement procedures to
review utilization of health care services by medicare-
eligible military retirees and dependents under this
section in order to enable the Secretary of Defense to
more effectively manage the use of military medical
treatment facilities by such retirees and dependents.
* * * * * * *
(k) Evaluation and Reports.--
(1) Independent evaluation.--The Comptroller General
of the United States shall conduct an evaluation of the
demonstration project, and shall submit annual reports
on the demonstration project to the administering
Secretaries and to the committees of jurisdiction in
the Congress. The first report shall be submitted not
later than 12 months after the date on which the
demonstration project begins operation, and the final
report not later than [3\1/2\] 4\1/2\ years after that
date. The evaluation and reports shall include an
assessment, based on the agreement entered into under
subsection (b), of the following:
(A) Any savings or costs to the medicare
program under this title resulting from the
demonstration project.
* * * * * * *
(P) Which interagency funding mechanisms
would be most appropriate if the project under
this section is made permanent.
(Q) The ability of the Department of Defense
to operate an effective and efficient managed
care system for medicare beneficiaries.
(R) The ability of the Department of Defense
to meet the managed care access and quality of
care standards under medicare.
(S) The adequacy of the data systems of the
Department of Defense for providing timely,
necessary, and accurate information required to
properly manage the demonstration project.
----------
SECTION 715 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1996
SEC. 715. TRAINING IN HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION FOR
TRICARE LEAD AGENTS.
(a) Provision of Training.--Not later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall implement a professional educational program to provide
appropriate training in health care management and
administration--
(1) to each commander, deputy commander, and managed
care coordinator of a military medical treatment
facility of the Department of Defense and any other
person who is selected to serve as a lead agent to
coordinate the delivery of health care by military and
civilian providers under the TRICARE program; and
(2) to appropriate members of the support staff of
the treatment facility who will be responsible for
daily operation of the TRICARE program.
(b) Limitation on Assignment Until Completion of Training.--
No person may be assigned as the commander, deputy commander,
or managed care coordinator of a military medical treatment
facility or as a TRICARE lead agent or senior member of the
staff of a TRICARE lead agent office until the Secretary of the
military department concerned submits a certification to the
Secretary of Defense that such person has completed the
training described in subsection (a).
[(b)] (c) Report on Implementation.--Not later than six
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretaryof Defense shall submit to Congress a report
describing the professional educational program implemented pursuant to
this section.
----------
SECTION 142 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1993
SEC. 142. MH-47E/MH-60K HELICOPTER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Required Testing.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
subsections (a) (2) and (b) of section 2366 of title 10, United
States Code, and the requirements of subsection (a) of section
2399 of such title--
(1) operational test and evaluation [and
survivability testing] of the MH-60K helicopter under
the MH-60K helicopter modification program shall be
completed prior to full materiel release of the MH-60K
helicopters for operational use; and
(2) operational test and evaluation [and
survivability testing] of the MH-47E helicopter under
the MH-47E helicopter modification program shall be
completed prior to full materiel release of the MH-47E
helicopters for operational use.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Women in the Service
* * * * * * *
SEC. 542. NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMBAT ASSIGNMENTS
TO WHICH FEMALE MEMBERS MAY BE ASSIGNED.
(a) In General.--(1) Except in a case covered by subsection
(b) or by section 6035 of title 10, United States Code,
whenever the Secretary of Defense proposes to change military
personnel policies in order to make available to female members
of the Armed Forces assignment to any type of combat unit,
class of combat vessel, or type of combat platform that is not
open to such assignments, the Secretary shall, not less than 30
days before such change is implemented, transmit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives notice of the proposed change in personnel
policy.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY TO
CARRY OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Period of Authority.--The authority to carry out projects
under subsection (a) shall terminate at the end of [September
30, 1999] September 30, 2004.
----------
SECTION 1502 OF THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME ACT OF 1991
SEC. 1502. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) The term ``chief personnel officers'' means--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(D) the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower
of the Marine Corps.]
(D) the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps
with responsibility for personnel matters.
* * * * * * *
----------
CHAPTER 403 OF TITLE 36, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 403--CIVIL AIR PATROL
Sec.
40301. Organization.
* * * * * * *
[40303. Membership.]
40303. Membership and governing body.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 40302. Purposes
The purposes of the corporation are [to--] as follows:
(1) To provide an organization to--
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United
States in contributing their efforts, services,
and resources in developing aviation and in
maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the
voluntary contribution of private citizens to
the public welfare[;].
(2) To provide aviation education and training
especially to its senior and cadet members[;].
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local
communities[; and].
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens
with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and
national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in
fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.
[Sec. 40303. Membership]
Sec. 40303. Membership and governing body
(a) Membership.--Eligibility for membership in the
corporation and the rights and privileges of members are as
provided in the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.
(b) Governing Body.--The Civil Air Patrol has a Board of
Governors. The composition and responsibilities of the Board of
Governors are set forth in section 9447 of title 10.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 122. ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS DESTROYER PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Authority for Multiyear Procurement [of 18 Vessels].--
The Secretary of the Navy is authorized, pursuant to section
2306b of title 10, United States Code, to enter into multiyear
contracts for the procurement of a total of [18 Arleigh Burke
class destroyers at a procurement rate of three ships in each
of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003] Arleigh
Burke classdestroyers in accordance with this subsection and
subsection (a)(4), subject to the availability of appropriations for
such destroyers. Vessels authorized under this subsection shall be
acquired at a procurement rate of three ships per year in each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2001 and up to three ships per year in each
of fiscal years 2002 through 2005. A contract for construction of one
or more vessels that is entered into in accordance with this subsection
shall include a clause that limits the liability of the Government to
the contractor for any termination of the contract.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1065. GEORGE C. MARSHALL EUROPEAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC SECURITY
STUDIES.
[(a) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1)
The Secretary of Defense may, on behalf of the George C.
Marshall European Center for Strategic Security Studies (in
this section referred to as the ``Marshall Center''), accept
foreign gifts or donations in order to defray the costs of, or
enhance the operation of, the Marshall Center.
[(2) Funds received by the Secretary under paragraph (1)
shall be credited to appropriations available for the
Department of Defense for the Marshall Center. Funds so
credited shall be merged with the appropriations to which
credited and shall be available for the Marshall Center for the
same purposes and same period as the appropriations with which
merged.
[(3) The Secretary of Defense shall notify Congress if the
total amount of money accepted under paragraph (1) exceeds
$2,000,000 in any fiscal year. Any such notice shall list each
of the contributors of such amounts and the amount of each
contribution in such fiscal year.
[(4) For purposes of this subsection, a foreign gift or
donation is a gift or donation of funds, materials (including
research materials), property, or services (including lecture
services and faculty services) from a foreign government, a
foundation or other charitable organization in a foreign
country, or an individual in a foreign country.
[(b) Marshall Center Participation by Foreign Nations.--(1)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Defense may authorize participation by a European or Eurasian
nation in Marshall Center programs if the Secretary determines,
after consultation with the Secretary of State, that such
participation is in the national interest of the United States.
[(2) Not later than January 31 of each year, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the
names of the foreign nations permitted to participate in
programs of the Marshall Center during the preceding year under
paragraph (1). Each such report shall be prepared by the
Secretary with the assistance of the Director of the Marshall
Center.]
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Marshall Center
Board of Visitors'' means the Board of Visitors of the George
C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
[(c)] (b) Exemptions for Members of Marshall Center Board of
Visitors From Certain Requirements.--(1) In the case of any
person invited to serve without compensation on the Marshall
Center Board of Visitors, the Secretary of Defense may waive
any requirement for financial disclosure that
----------
SECTIONS 305 AND 306 OF H.R. 3425
(As enacted into law by section 1005(a)(5) of P.L. 106-113)
[Sec. 305. Notwithstanding section 3324 of title 31, United
States Code, and section 1006(h) of title 37, United States
Code, the basic pay and allowances that accrues to members of
the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force for the pay period
ending on September 30, 2000, shall be paid, whether by
electronic transfer of funds or otherwise, no earlier than
October 1, 2000.
[Sec. 306. The pay of any Federal officer or employee that
would be payable on September 29, 2000, or September 30, 2000,
for the preceding applicable pay period (if not for this
section) shall be paid, whether by electronic transfer of funds
or otherwise, on October 1, 2000.]
----------
SECTION 1001 OF THE ACT OF NOVEMBER 29, 1999
AN ACT Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
Sec. 1001. Paygo Adjustments. (a) Notwithstanding Rule 3 of
the Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines set forth in the joint
explanatory statement of the committee of conference
accompanying Conference Report No. 105-217, legislation enacted
in this division by reference in the paragraphs after
[paragraph 4 of subsection 1000(a)] paragraph (5) of section
1000(a), and the provisions of titles V, VI, and VII of the
legislation enacted in this division by reference in such
paragraph (5), that would have been estimated by the Office of
Management and Budget as changing direct spending or receipts
under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 were it included in an Act other than an
appropriations Act shall be treated as direct spending or
receipts legislation as appropriate, under section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, but
shall be subject to subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTIONS 8175 AND 8176 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2000
[Sec. 8175. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Department of Defense shall make progress payments based on
progress no less than 12 days after receiving a valid billing
and the Department of Defense shall make progress payments
based on cost no less than 19 days after receiving a valid
billing: Provided, That this provision shall be effective only
with respect to billings received during the last month of the
fiscal year.
[Sec. 8176. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Department of Defense shall make adjustments in payment
procedures and policies to ensure that payments are made no
earlier than one day before the date on which the payments
would otherwise be due under any other provision of law:
Provided, That this provision shall be effective only with
respect to invoices received during the last month of the
fiscal year.]
----------
SECTION 2905 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990
SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) The Secretary may transfer real property and personal
property located at a military installation to be closed or
realigned under this part to the redevelopment authority with
respect to the installation for purposes of job generation on
the installation. This paragraph also applies to real property
at the installation that is initially transferred to another
Federal agency as excess property under the authority of this
part, but is subsequently determined to be excess to the needs
of that agency, if--
(i) the excess property is adjacent to property that
was conveyed to the redevelopment authority with
respect to the installation;
(ii) the acreage of the excess property is equal to
less than 10 percent of the other acreage conveyed to
the redevelopment authority; and
(iii) the property has been screened for further
Federal use as provided in section 2696 of title 10,
United States Code, notwithstanding subsection (e)(3)
of such section.
* * * * * * *
(G) The provisions of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(42 U.S.C. 9620(h)) shall apply to any transfer of real
property under this paragraph.
(H)(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(G) The provisions of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(42U.S.C. 9620(h)) shall apply to any transfer of real property
under this paragraph.]
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 686 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 686. Assignment of members of the armed forces to housing units
(a) * * *
(b) Effect of Certain Assignments on Entitlement to Housing
Allowances.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), housing
referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered as quarters
of the United States or a housing facility under the
jurisdiction of a uniformed service for purposes of [section
403(b)] section 403(e) of title 37.
(2) A member of the armed forces who is assigned in
accordance with subsection (a) to a housing unit not owned or
leased by the United States shall be entitled to [a basic
allowance for quarters under section 403 of title 37, and, if
in a high housing cost area, a variable housing allowance under
section 403a of that title] a basic allowance for housing under
section 403 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 405 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND
EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
SEC. 405. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) References to Job Training Partnership Act Subsequent to
Repeal.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) National defense authorization act for fiscal
year 1993.--
(A) * * *
(B) Section 4461.--Section 4461(1) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1993 (10 U.S.C. 1143 note) is amended by
striking ``The Job Training Partnership [Act of
title] Act or title'' and inserting ``Title''.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 224 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954
Sec. 224. Communication of Restricted Data.--Whoever,
lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access to,
control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note,
or information involving or incorporating Restricted Data--
a. * * *
b. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to
any individual or person, or attempts or conspires to
do any of the foregoing, with reason to believe such
data will be utilized to injure the United States or to
secure an advantage to any foreign nation, shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
[$500,000] $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than
ten years, or both.
----------
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
Subpart B--Employment and Retention
CHAPTER 31--AUTHORITY FOR EMPLOYMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES OF TEMPORARY
ORGANIZATIONS ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER
3161. Temporary organizations established by law or Executive order.
SUBCHAPTER IV--EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES OF TEMPORARY
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE
ORDER
Sec. 3161. Temporary organizations established by law or Executive
order
(a) Definition of Temporary Organization.--For the purposes
of this subchapter, the term ``temporary organization'' means
an organization such as a commission, committee, or board that
is established by law in the legislative or executive branches,
or by Executive order in the executive branch, for a specific
period, which shall not exceed 5 years, for the purpose of
performing specific projects or studies.
(b) Hiring Authority.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
chapter 51, the head of a temporary organization may employ
such numbers and types of employees as required to perform the
functions required of the temporary organization. Employees may
be appointed for a period of 5 years or the life of the
temporary organization, whichever is less.
(c) Status of Positions and Appointments.--Positions of
employment in a temporary organization are excepted from the
competitive service.
(d) Compensation.--(1) The basic pay of an employee of a
temporary organization may be set without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51 or subchapter III of chapter 53,
except that--
(A) basic pay for an executive level position (such
as a chairperson, member, or executive or staff
director), and, in exceptional cases, for senior staff
shall be capped at the maximum rate of basic pay
established for the Senior Executive Service under
subchapter VIII of chapter 53; and
(B) basic pay for other staff may not exceed the
maximum rate of basic pay for GS-15 of the General
Schedule.
(2) An employee whose rate of basic pay is set under
paragraph (1) shall be entitled to locality-based comparability
payments, as provided under section 5304.
(e) Travel Expenses.--An employee of a temporary
organization, whether employed on a full-time or part-time
basis, may be entitled to travel and transportation allowances,
including per diem allowances, authorized for employees under
subchapter I of chapter 57, while traveling away from the
regular place of business of the employee in the performance of
services for the temporary organization, career-conditional
appointment, or the equivalent, who transfers to or converts to
an appointment in a temporary organization with the consent of
the head of the agency (or the designee of the agency head) in
which the employee was serving is entitled to be returned to a
position of like seniority, status, and pay (without grade or
pay retention) as the former position in the agency from which
employed immediately preceding employment with the temporary
organization if--
(1) the employee is being separated from the
temporary organization for reasons other than
misconduct, neglect of duty, or malfeasance; and
(2) the employee applies for return rights not later
than 30 days before the end of the employment in the
temporary organization, or the termination of the
temporary organization, whichever is earlier.
(g) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--The
head of the temporary organization may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b).
(h) Acceptance of Volunteer Services.--(1) The head of a
temporary organization may accept volunteer services relating
to the duties of the temporary organization without regard to
section 1342 of title 31, including service as advisers,
experts, members, or in other capacities determined appropriate
by the head of the temporary organization. The head of the
temporary organization--
(A) shall assure that all persons accepted as
volunteers are notified of the scope of the voluntary
services accepted;
(B) shall supervise volunteers to the same extent as
employees receiving compensation for similar services;
and
(C) shall ensure that volunteers have appropriate
credentials or are otherwise qualified to perform in
the capacities for which they are accepted.
(2) A person providing volunteer services under this
subsection shall be considered an employee of the
Federal Government for the purposes of chapters 73 and
81, chapter 171 of title 28, chapter 11 of title 18, and
part 2635 of title 5 of the Code of Federal regulations.
(i) Detailees.--Upon request of the head of the temporary
organization, the head of any department or agency of the
United States may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any
personnel of the department or agency to the temporary
organization to assist in carrying out its duties.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 35--RETENTION PREFERENCE, RESTORATION, AND REEMPLOYMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--RETENTION PREFERENCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3502. Order of retention
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) No authority under paragraph (1) may be exercised after
[September 30, 2001] September 30, 2005.
* * * * * * *
Subpart C--Employee Performance
CHAPTER 41--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4107. Restriction on degree training
(a) Except as provided in [subsection (b)] subsections (b)
and (c) of this section, this chapter does not authorize the
selection and assignment of an employee for training, or the
payment or reimbursement of the costs of training, for--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) The regulations prescribed under section 4118 of this
title shall include provisions under which the head of an
agency may provide training, or payment or reimbursement for
the costs of any training, not otherwise allowable under
[subsection (a)] subsections (a) or (c) of this section, if
necessary to assist in the recruitment or retention of
employees in occupations in which the Government has or
anticipates a shortage of qualified personnel, especially in
occupations involving critical skills (as defined under such
regulations).
* * * * * * *
(c) With respect to an employee of the Department of
Defense--
(1) this chapter does not authorize, except as
provided in subsection (b) of this section, the
selection and assignment of the employee for training,
or the payment or reimbursement of the costs of
training, for--
(A) the purpose of providing an opportunity
to the employee to obtain an academic degree in
order to qualify for appointment to a
particular position for which the academic
degree is a basic requirement; or
(B) the sole purpose of providing an
opportunity to the employee to obtain one or
more academic degrees, unless such opportunity
is part of a planned, systematic, and
coordinated program of professional development
endorsed by the Department of Defense; and
(2) any course of post-secondary education delivered
through classroom, electronic, or other means shall be
administered or conducted by an institution recognized
under standards implemented by a national or regional
accrediting body, except in a case in which such
standards do not exist or would not be appropriate.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992
SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.
(a) Assistance for International Nonproliferation
Activities.--Subject to the limitations and requirements
provided in this section, the Secretary of Defense, under the
guidance of the President, may provide assistance to support
international nonproliferation activities.
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates
at the close of fiscal year [2000] 2001.
----------
SECTION 1206 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1996
SEC. 1206. REPORT ON ACCOUNTING FOR UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Comptroller General Assessment.--Not later than [30] 90
days after the date on which a report of the Secretary under
subsection (a) is submitted to Congress, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report
giving the Comptroller General's assessment of the report and
making any recommendations that the Comptroller General
considers appropriate.
----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXI--ARMY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property
and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Army: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... Anniston Army Depot..... $3,550,000
* * * * * * *
Texas....................... Fort Bliss.............. $4,100,000
Fort Hood............... [$32,500,000]
$45,300,000
* * * * * * *
-----------------
Total............... [$768,781,000]
$781,581,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1998, for military construction, land acquisition, and military
family housing functions of the Department of the Army in the
total amount of [$2,098,713,000] $2,111,513,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the
United States authorized by section 2101(a),
[$609,076,000] $622,581,000.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE
AND REALIGNMENT ACT
SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) The Secretary may require any additional terms and
conditions in connection with a transfer under this paragraph
as such Secretary considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States. This paragraph also applies to
real property at the installation that is initially transferred
to another Federal agency as excess property under the
authority of this title, but is subsequently determined to be
excess to the needs of that agency, if--
(i) the excess property is adjacent to property that
was conveyed to the redevelopment authority with
respect to the installation;
(ii) the acreage of the excess property is equal to
less than 10 percent of the other acreage conveyed to
the redevelopment authority; and
(iii) the property has been screened for further
Federal use as provided in section 2696 of title 10,
United States Code, notwithstanding subsection (e)(2)
of such section.
* * * * * * *
----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2843. AUTHORITY FOR OXNARD HARBOR DISTRICT, PORT HUENEME,
CALIFORNIA, TO USE CERTAIN NAVY PROPERTY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Restrictions on Use.--The agreement authorized under
subsection (a) shall require the District--
[(1) to suspend operations under the agreement in the
event Navy contingency operations are conducted at the
Center; and
[(2) to use the property covered by the agreement in
a manner consistent with Navy operations conducted at
the Center.
[(d) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the use of the
property covered by the agreement under subsection (a), the
District shall pay to the Navy an amount equal to the fair
market rental value of the property, as determined by the
Secretary taking into consideration the District's use of the
property.
[(2) The Secretary may include a provision in the agreement
requiring the District--
[(A) to pay the Navy an amount (as determined by the
Secretary) to cover the costs of replacing at the
Center any facilities vacated by the Navy on account of
the agreement or to construct suitable replacement
facilities for the Navy; and
[(B) to pay the Navy an amount (as determined by the
Secretary) for the costs of relocating Navy operations
from the vacated facilities to the replacement
facilities.]
(c) Restrictions on Use.--The District's use of the property
covered by an agreement under subsection (a) is subject to the
following conditions:
(1) The District shall suspend operations under the
agreement upon notification by the commanding officer
of the Center that the property is needed to support
mission essential naval vessel support requirements or
Navy contingency operations, including combat missions,
natural disasters, and humanitarian missions.
(2) The District shall use the property covered by
the agreement in a manner consistent with Navy
operations at the Center, including cooperating with
the Navy for the purpose of assisting the Navy to meet
its through-put requirements at the Center for the
expeditious movement of military cargo.
(3) The commanding officer of the Center may require
the District to remove any of its personal property at
the Center that the commanding officer determines may
interfere with military operations at the Center. If
the District cannot expeditiously remove the property,
the commanding officer may provide for the removal of
the property at District expense.
(d) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the use of the
property covered by an agreement under subsection (a), the
District shall pay to the Navy an amount that is mutually
agreeable to the parties to the agreement, taking into account
the nature and extent of the District's use of the property.
The Secretary may accept in-kind consideration under
paragraph (1), including consideration in the form of--
(A) the District's maintenance, preservation,
improvement, protection, repair, or restoration of all
or any portion of the property covered by the
agreement;
(B) the construction of new facilities, the
modification of existing facilities, or the replacement
of facilities vacated by the Navy on account of the
agreement; and
(C) covering the cost of relocation of the operations
of the Navy from the vacated facilities to the
replacement facilities.
(3) All cash consideration received under paragraph (1) shall
be deposited in the special account in the Treasury established
for the Navy under section 2667(d) of title 10, United States
Code. The amounts deposited in the special account pursuant to
this paragraph shall be available, as provided in appropriation
Acts, for general supervision, administration, overhead
expenses, and Center operations and for the maintenance
preservation, improvement, protection, repair, or restoration
of property at the Center.
* * * * * * *
[(f) Use of Payment.--(1) In such amounts as is provided in
advance in appropriation Acts, the Secretary may use amounts
paid under subsection (d)(1) to pay for general supervision,
administration, and overhead expenses and for improvement,
maintenance, repair, construction, or restoration to the port
operations area (or to roads and railways serving the area) at
the Center.
[(2) In such amounts as is provided in advance in
appropriation Acts, the Secretary may use amounts paid under
subsection (d)(2) to pay for constructing new facilities, or
making modifications to existing facilities, that are necessary
to replace facilities vacated by the Navy on account of the
agreement under subsection (a) and for relocating operations of
the Navy from the vacated facilities to replacement
facilities.]
[(g)] (f) Construction by District.--The Secretary may
authorize the District to demolish existing facilities located
on the property covered by the agreement under subsection (a)
and, consistent with the restriction specified in subsection
(c)(2), construct new facilities on the property for joint use
by the District and the Navy.
[(h)] (g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection with
the agreement authorized under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 2851. JOINT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING FOR COMMISSARIES AND
NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITY FACILITIES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Exemption for Certain Leased Lands.--(1) Section 303 of
title 49, and section 138 of title 23, United States Code,
shall not apply to any approval by the Secretary of
Transportation of the use by State Route 241 of parkland within
Camp Pendleton that is leased by the State of California, where
the lease reserved to the United States the right to establish
rights-of-way.
(2) The Agency shall be responsible for the implementation of
any measures required by the Secretary of Transportation to
mitigate the impact of the Agency's use of parkland within Camp
Pendleton for State Route 241. With the exception of those
mitigation measures directly related to park functions, the
measures shall be located outside the boundaries of Camp
Pendleton. The required mitigation measures related to park
functions shall be implemented in accordance with the terms of
the lease referred to in paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 6 OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME HERITAGE ACT OF 1994
SEC. 6. FUNDING.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Disposals of Vessels.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall dispose of all vessels described in paragraph
(2)--
(A) by September 30, [2001] 2006;
(B) in a manner that maximizes the return on
the vessels to the United States; [and]
(C) [in accordance with] subject to
subparagraph (D), in accordance with the plan
of the Department of Transportation for
disposal of those vessels and requirements
under sections 508 and 510(i) of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1158,
1160(i))[.]; and
(D) to the maximum extent possible, by
scrapping outside of the United States.
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN M. SPRATT, JR.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to add
my voice to those who have taken note of this, Chairman
Spence's last markup as chairman of our Committee. I have
served in Congress and on the Armed Services Committee since
1983. For all this time, Floyd Spence has been my colleague in
Congress and on this committee, and I would be remiss not to
note for the record my appreciation for his distinguished
service.
Since he was first elected in 1970, and since he served
first as a member of the committee and then as Chairman, Floyd
Spence has been a tireless advocate for the armed forces. As
Chairman, he has always conducted himself with grace,
collegiality, and good humor, and has presided over defense
authorization bills that have consistently passed with
bipartisan support--an all too rare occurrence in Congress over
the past several years. I would like to commend our Chairman as
we wrap up the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization
Act, and express my admiration for the good work he has done.
The committee's markup of the Fiscal Year 2001 National
Defense Authorization Act was indeed a bipartisan bill, and I
was happy to support it. Nevertheless, I do have concerns with
certain elements of the bill, most of which I spoke to during
our markup session.
cooperative threat reduction program
I remain concerned with certain provisions in H.R. 4205
relating to the CTR program. The Chemical Weapons Destruction
program request of $35 million is completely eliminated, and
use of CTR funds for construction of a fossil fuel energy
facility in Russia, a necessary component of the U.S. effort to
reduce the production of weapons-usable plutonium, is
prohibited.
Progress toward construction of the chemical weapons
destruction facility has been slow, and I understand that
Russia may not have put forward an effort or funds commensurate
with the U.S. level of effort, but the construction of a
facility to destroy these dangerous weapons of mass destruction
is an important element of our national security strategy. I
believe there are better ways to legislate improvements in the
chemical weapons de-militarization program than to discontinue
funding entirely, and hope that this issue can be addressed in
conference with the Senate.
I am also concerned that the committee chose to include a
prohibition on the use of CTR funds to construct a fossil fuel
plant in Russia. If the United States is to succeed in
encouraging Russia to slow its production of weapons-usable
plutonium, we must be willing to consider the concomitant need
for electricity in Russia's nuclear cities. Their need for
electricity is currently met by the nuclear reactors whose
cores we have previously sought to convert; shutting them down
will automatically create a need for new source of energy. For
the U.S. to categorically refuse to assist with the
construction of the alternative source of energy is
counterproductive to our goal of stopping plutonium production.
arms control provisions
I also have concerns about cuts in funding to the Arms
Control Implementation account of the Pentagon, although I
appreciate the Committee's willingness to work with me to
mitigate the funding limitations that were to be imposed on the
Arms Control Implementation programs. I still do not agree with
the $11.5 million cut to this important $219 million set of
programs, but the most objectionable aspects of the original
proposed language--to narrowly target the cuts at specific
treaty compliance efforts--has been dropped.
The United States has the responsibility to fully implement
all treaties, such as the ABM Treaty and START I. Under the
original proposal, funds would have been eliminated from
certain START I compliance activities. This could have led to
treaty violations. Also, the funds to be deleted from the ABM
compliance efforts would have deprived the department of needed
resources to be used in conducting studies on ongoing weapon
system development programs such as the Airborne Laser. This
would needlessly delay these programs and lead to increased
costs. While I still support the original budget request for
Arms Control Implementation and hope that this full funding
level will be agreed to in conference, I think the committee
has moved in the right direction in not trying to micro-manage
these activities.
airborne laser
I appreciate the willingness of Rep. Weldon to address some
of my concerns regarding the transfer of the Airborne Laser
(ABL) from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO). I had planned to offer an amendment in
committee to block the transfer, but given Rep. Weldon's
willingness to address some of my concerns and to keep an open
mind on the matter, I did not offer the amendment.
The committee believes the transfer will better ensure
funding for the ABL program, but I disagree. The BMDO budget is
much smaller and less flexible than the Air Force's. Moreover,
BMDO has many difficult technical problems to deal with in the
next couple of years in developing both a national missile
defense and several theater missile defense systems. We are
already transferring one challenging program to BMDO, SBIRS-Low. I
believe it is unwise to push another program on to BMDO at this time,
especially since the ABL deals with a number of very different
technologies than the other systems they are presently managing. Let us
allow them to remain focused on their core mission.
The Air Force still opposes the transfer. Gen. Michael
Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff, wrote the committee on May 8th,
stating that ABL ``was born in the Air Force, brought up in the
Air Force, and deserves to be fielded by the Air Force.'' I
agree with Gen. Ryan, and although I appreciate Rep. Weldon's
good-faith efforts to reach a compromise, I will continue my
efforts to reverse the committee position during the conference
on the bill with the Senate.
START I Warhead Levels
Last year, the committee enacted a provision that prohibits
DOD to go below START-I force levels for strategic weapons
until START II enters into force. Part of the rationale for
this prohibition was to encourage the Russian Duma to ratify
START II, which the Duma did this year, eight years after it
was negotiated and four years after Senate ratification. Rep.
Tom Allen offered an amendment in committee to strike this
prohibition and give the DOD flexibility to go below these
levels or to have a different mix of forces than the
prohibition prescribes. The Allen amendment was permissive in
nature and did not mandate reductions. Gen. Henry Shelton,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has testified that the
Department would like the flexibility to field the most
militarily useful and cost-effective force and opposes the
prohibition. Unfortunately, the committee rejected the Allen
amendment. I believe this is a mistake, and hope the committee
will reconsider the issue either on the House floor or in
conference with the Senate.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
Although the committee added $4.5 billion to the
President's budget request for defense, several requested
programs were cut. One of these programs is the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, (``FUSRAP''). FUSRAP is
a program to clean up sites that were contaminated by the
Manhattan project and other early atomic energy-related
activities by the government. The committee did not authorize
FUSRAP, presumably because it does not believe it should be
considered a defense activity. As I indicated in a statement in
committee, I will keep an open mind on the proper
classification of this program. However, simply not authorizing
the funding is not the answer. The committee should either work
through the Budget Committees to convince the Office of
Management and budget to reclassify FUSRAP as a non-defense
program, or acknowledge the liability of the U.S. Government
for these contaminated sites and authorize their clean up.
national missile defense
Section 232 of the Chairman's mark is a non-binding ``Sense
of the Congress'' than urges the President to abide by H.R. 4,
a bill that states that the policy of the United States is to
deploy a limited national missile defense system. I was a co-
author of the original House version of this bill, and while I
preferred the original version, I supported the final bill as
amended by the Senate and signed into law by the President. I
consider this ``Sense of the Congress'' to be unnecessary, as
the Administration is following a rational course about
deployment and is seeking to modify the ABM Treaty in order to
deploy without disrupting our relationship with Russia, but I
do not object to it. However, I believe the assertion in this
section that ``An effective National Missile Defense system is
technologically feasible'' has yet to be demonstrated.
First, we need to have many more tests of the system
currently being developed before we can declare it
technologically feasible. Second, this system is to counter a
limited strike. It will not be able to defend against a large
strike or even the unauthorized launch of a boatload of Russian
SSBN's. To say an effective national missile defense system is
technologically feasible without any qualification is plainly
inaccurate.
John M. Spratt, Jr.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL
Thank you Mr. Chairman for producing a bill that is fair
and attempts to balance the military's many legitimate needs
with the limited funds under the jurisdiction of this
committee. I especially appreciate the efforts of this
committee to address health-care issues facing both our active
duty and retired veterans. The ramifications of not having
quality, accessible and affordable health care are far
reaching. In these days of economic prosperity, sustaining an
all-voluntary military force is challenging. Add to that a
disgruntled population of retired veterans, who have been an
important recruitment vehicle in the past, and sustaining
appropriate levels of manning becomes nearly impossible. Your
willingness to address these difficult issues, in spite of the
enormous costs associated with these problems, stands as a
testament to all veterans, that this committee takes seriously
veterans concerns, and recognizes the role they continue to
play in their service to this country.
I applaud the leadership you have provided as this
committee determines what our future armed forces should look
like. Modernization is difficult when the only question is
replacing old equipment with similar new equipment. However,
advances in technology and manufacturing cause everyone in
defense to revisit how we perform R&D and procurement in a
manner that keeps pace with advances in technology. As always,
we must provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with
modern equipment, ensuring that they continue to succeed on
today's battlefield.
I fully support the objectives and provisions of this bill.
However, I remain concerned about the military abortion issue.
Last year, I introduced an amendment that corrects the
disparity that exists concerning access to abortion in cases of
pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Currently, women in
the military, both service members and dependents, assigned
overseas are not being afforded the same access to medical
treatment as we provide in other federal programs. These
military women should have the same medical treatment options
that are available to women who reside in the United States and
in fact, receive fewer health benefits than their male
colleagues. This amendment which prevailed at subcommittee
during consideration of the FY00 Defense Bill, remained in the
bill through full committee and floor consideration. It was
dropped, regrettably during the House-Senate conference. I
chose not to offer this amendment again this year because there
is no reason to think the issue would be resolved differently--
neither of the committees has changed since last May. If we are
serious about closing the gender gap that exists in the
service, this is one of the many issues we will have to
resolve.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 4205, THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BILL
economic development conveyance for non-brac facilities
Although the bill as a whole is strong, I would like to
call attention to an important measure not included in this
bill. This year, I requested that this Committee establish fair
procedures for communities that, because of accidents of
history, have lost military installations and now cannot take
advantage of a new Department of Defense economic development
program. Statutory language I proposed to the Committee would
allow no cost economic development conveyances for military
installations closed outside Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) processes, such as the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant
(INAAP), a facility in my district.
Last year, Congress gave BRAC communities a real boost by
allowing them to renegotiate special economic development
conveyances (EDCs). I believe it is only fair to extend that
same consideration to other facilities and their home
communities. All communities deserve this opportunity.
We all know losing a military installation can hurt the
economy of a community. All communities that lose military
installations should be able to reclaim the closed property at
minimal expense and use it to create jobs and industry.
In April of last year, the Clinton Administration requested
that Congress pass legislation authorizing the Department of
Defense to provide no cost EDCs to communities with BRAC
installations. There was an important condition attached. The
communities have to use their closed bases for economic
development and job creation.
Although this Committee did not include the proposal in its
Defense Authorization bill, the Senate did. The EDC language
remained in the Conference report and passed the Congress in
the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. The President
subsequently signed it into law. Section 2821(a) of the Act
allows no cost conveyance at installations closed or realigned
under the base closure laws by amending the Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990.
Communities are taking advantage of this opportunity. Kelly
Air Force Base is a BRAC facility near San Antonio, Texas. It
is scheduled to close next year. In March, Secretary Cohen
visited Kelly Air Force Base to announce the government had
forgiven a debt of $103 million owed by the Greater Kelly
Development Authority. That action freed up millions of dollars
the community can now use to rebuild the industry lost when the
base was ordered closed.
There are non-BRAC installations that close and are
conveyed using procedures similar to those allowed for the
conveyance of Kelly Air Force Base. These old installations
hold the same potential for economic development and job
creation--and the same challenges. Reduced activity at these
places has a profound effect on local economies, but last
year's legislation does not help non-BRAC installations.
I have such a site in my district, the Indiana Army
Ammunition Plant. Although there are 80 rent-paying tenants at
INAAP, it is not yet a profitable venture.
Section 2843 of Public Law 105-261, the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act of 1999, provides for
conveyance of 4,660 acres of the INAPP to a reuse authority.
This closure and the conveyance are outside of Base
Realignment and Closure procedures. Although my predecessor
originally pursued no cost conveyance, the language of the
legislation calls on the reuse authority to pay, in one lump
sum, ``fair market value'' for the 4,660 acre parcel at INAAP
at the end of a 10-year period.
A no cost conveyance for INAAP would free up much needed
funds to help the reuse authority in Clark County push ahead
with economic development and make the facility more attractive
to private industry.
This is one example, but I did not propose this language
specifically for my district. Facilities like the Volunteer
Army Ammunition Plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee fall into the
same category. I want all former military communities to be
able to benefit from the fair deal we have already given BRAC
communities.
This is a good bill. It strengthens our national defense in
numerous, important ways. It boosts benefits for our fighting
men and women. But I urge the Committee to help create
opportunities for communities that, because of accidents of
history, lost military installations but can't take advantage
of common sense legislation Congress has already passed. It is
nothing more than a simple matter of fairness.
Baron P. Hill.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES JOSEPH R. PITTS AND JOHN M. SPRATT,
JR.
electronic warfare
Electronic warfare (EW) played a key role in the success of
Operation Allied Force last year. U.S. jamming aircraft, most
notably the Navy's EA-6B Prowler, provided continuous
protection of all alliance aircraft penetrating Yugoslav
airspace. As a result, only two aircraft were lost in 12,000
sorties, and the sole U.S. loss was directly attributable to
lack of EW coverage.
U.S. military supremacy in the twenty-first century
promises to be even more dependent upon control of the
electromagnetic spectrum than it was in the closing decades of
the last century. The Kosovo operation made clear that
America's EW aircraft are a low-density/high-demand asset in
need of significant enhancements if they are to meet the demand
of a new century. Unfortunately, EW requirements have not
received focused attention in the Armed Services or the
Congress. With this in mind, we formed the EW Working Group
last year to encourage awareness of and support for EW
capabilities. We have worked and consulted with the Services,
Members of Congress, and the defense industry to advance the EW
mission and identify key requirements.
We are very pleased that the FY 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act contains funding for several important EW
priorities, specifically the $23 million in upgrades for the
EA-6B Prowler. The procurement of 124 AN/ASW-41 automatic
flight control systems will provide automatic speed, attitude,
and altitude control capabilities for the Prowler, which will
increase mission capability, improve reliability, and reduce
maintenance. The Prowler fleet is overcommitted and aging fast,
and maintenance is frequently deferred. The Defense
Authorization bill will go a long way in restoring our Prowler
fleet so that adequate EW airborne jamming support can be
provided to our Armed Forces aircraft.
We thank Chairman Spence for his leadership and the Members
of the Armed Service Committee for their support for EW assets
and capabilities in the Authorization bill. We look forward to
working with Members of the Committee in the future to assure
that America's EW edge is preserved.
Joseph R. Pitts.
John M. Spratt, Jr.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES UNDERWOOD, ABERCROMBIE, ORTIZ,
ALLEN AND REYES
We are disappointed that the Committee was not able to do
more in terms of reviewing the Department of Defense's over
reliance on outsourcing, privatization and commercial
activities studies. By 2005, the Department of Defense (DoD)
expects to compete more than 200,000 jobs with savings pegged
at approximately $11.2 billion. These estimates are sheer
mathematical conjuring. The Pentagon has long assumed these
savings. Indeed the individual services often do not even
account for the cost of performing the study, which in most
cases comes from the O & M accounts. These costs can include
the paying of the cost-comparison study itself as well as
associated costs for voluntary separation incentive pay, early
retirement benefits, and general reductions in forces (RiFs).
The zeal with which the DoD employs to invent savings has
evolved into the mythical search for the holy grail. The DoD
has invested heavily, both in manpower and funding, in order to
implement outsourcing endeavors and conduct public/private
competitions, but these efforts may never realize the
anticipated savings.
In the coming weeks, the DoD will be announcing their
intentions to employ other means to convert work from the
public sector to the private sector. In an all but blessed
initiative, the DoD has been encouraging the military to look
at alternatives to the traditional A-76 competitions, known as
strategic sourcing. By their own admissions, the DoD has
utilized the A-76 process in lieu of base closure authority to
reap fiscal savings. While their arguments may raise some
interesting concerns, their premise is completely wrong.
No doubt, the DoD has been hamstrung by declining budgets
and increased operational demands. Indeed we appreciate the
challenging fiscal position that the DoD must contend with.
Nevertheless, it seems ill conceived to purely exploit savings
from the hides of the civil service workforce.
The Department has been fostering the notion that they are
earnestly devising better methods to perform tasks--the so-
called performance-based and results-based assessments. In
reality though, there is no accurate means to account for the
type of savings that can be reaped from the re-engineering of
work tasks. This means that the only verifiable method that the
DoD can employ to immediately show savings, is to contract out
hundreds of positions. Systemically, this may be creating a
serious problem; the military, it seems, is risking short term
savings at the expense of long term readiness.
We are not opposed to savings or efficiency. In many
instances we recognize the colossal waste in the Pentagon as
well as opportunities to improve the methods of operating and
maintaining our infrastructure. However, what we are opposed to
is when readiness and strategic forethought take a back seat to
fiscal aggressiveness. We need to think hard when many of the
military's rising stars earn Meritorious Service Medals or
Legion of Merits because they were able to save $300 million by
laying off a thousand employees.
It is important to remember that the first duty of the
military is to plan, prepare, fight and win our nation's wars.
The military is not a business and thus will not always have a
balanced spreadsheet. The Department's accountants cannot place
a dollar figure on readiness. That is a political and strategic
decision that both the Congress and the President must make. We
hope that a more prudent and fiscally viable approach to this
intractable problem can be brokered out before the Department's
civilian workforce readiness erodes any further.
Robert A. Underwood.
Silvestre Reyes.
Neil Abercrombie.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Thomas H. Allen.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
We regret the Committee's failure to repeal the statutory
prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals. If
enacted, women stationed overseas would be permitted to use
their own funds to obtain abortion services. No federal funds
would have been used and health care professionals who are
opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or
moral principle would not be required to do so.
This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Servicewomen and
military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special
treatment, only the right to receive the same legally protected
medical services that women in the United States receive. We
had the opportunity to finally put a stop to the misguided law
that has endangered our servicewomen's lives for far too long.
The Department of Defense, American Public Health
Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America have all indicated
their support for the amendment.
If we are to attract the best and brightest of our nation's
young people to our Armed Forces we must act to restore this
fundamental right. We cannot expect to attain our readiness and
recruitment goals when potential soldiers know they will not
have the same right to access to health care when they are
stationed overseas.
It is our responsibility to restore the right of freedom of
choice to women serving overseas in our nation's Armed Forces.
Members of the military and their families already give up many
freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country. They
should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health or
their basic constitutional rights because of a policy with no
valid military purpose.
Loretta Sanchez.
Neil Abercrombie.
Lane Evans.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
Thomas H. Allen.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Mike Thompson.
Adam Smith.
Robert E. Andrews.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
vieques, puerto rico
In accordance with the Presidential Directives concerning
Vieques, Puerto Rico, federal and local law enforcement
officers recently removed the peaceful civil demonstrators who
had been blocking the Navy's access to the bombing range in
Vieques.
As a result of this removal, the Navy has regained control
and access to the range. In fact, the U.S. Navy warplanes
resumed training on the Atlantic Fleet bombing range in Vieques
using air-to-ground inert ordnance.
We are disappointed that the Committee has amended this
sensible framework that could disrupt the process already
underway, and further polarize all parties involved. The
directives ensure the safety of the disfranchised U.S. citizens
of Vieques and provide a sensible framework that allows the
Navy to continue its training operations.
The year-long peaceful civil disobedience on Vieques
evidences the turbulent history between the Navy and the U.S.
citizens of Vieques, as well as the overwhelming sentiments of
frustration, self worth and neglect by the American citizens of
Puerto Rico.
Now that the two parties involved have come to agreement,
it is this Committee's responsibility to implement the
Presidential Directives. The directives offer the most
effective resolution to the Vieques ordeal. Namely to respond
to the needs and concerns of the American citizens who live in
Vieques while meeting vital National security needs.
The President, the Navy and the Governor of Puerto Rico
have all stood by the Presidential Directives. It is now up to
the House Armed Services Committee and Congress to guarantee
further fulfillment of the Presidential Directives.
Very truly yours,
Loretta Sanchez.
Neil Abercrombie.
Ike Skelton.
Robert Underwood.
Robert A. Brady.
Patrick J. Kennedy.