57 992
1999
106 th Congress 1st Session
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
106 244
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000
REPORT
of the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2561]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
July 20, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
C O N T E N T S
Bill Totals 1
Committee Budget Review Process 4
Introduction 4
Basis for Committee Recommendations 5
The President's Fiscal Year 2000 2005 Defense Program 5
Neglect of Traditional Appropriations and Acquisition Program Practices 8
``Lessons Learned'' from Recent Military Operations 10
Shortages of Low-Density, High Demand Assets 13
United States Air Force--At a Crossroads? 13
Air Force Modernization Issues 16
22
17
22 Concerns
17
Potential Alternatives
19
Major Committee Recommendations
20
Air Force Program Reprioritization
20
Ensuring ``Lessons Learned'' Are Incorporated into
FY 2001 2006 Defense Planning
21
Ensuring Appropriations Process Integrity
22
Multiyear Procurement
22
Addressing High Priority Shortfalls
22
Ensuring a Quality Ready Force
23
Modernization Programs
23
Reforms/Program Reductions
24
Tactical Reconnaissance
25
Information Assurance
26
Preparedness Against WMD Terrorist Attacks
26
Committee Recommendations by Major Category
28
Active Military Personnel
28
Guard and Reserve
28
Operation and Maintenance
28
Procurement
28
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
29
Forces to be Supported
29
Department of the Army
29
Department of the Navy
30
Department of the Air Force
31
Title I, Military Personnel
33
Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel
Appropriations
33
Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for FY2000
33
Overall Active End Strength
34
Overall Selected Reserve End Strength
34
Adjustments to Military Personnel Account
35
Overview
35
End Strength Adjustments
35
Pay and Retirement Reform
35
Basic Allowance for Housing
36
Aviation Continuation Pay
36
Unfunded Requirements
36
JROTC Leadership Training
36
Quality of Life Study
37
Guard and Reserve Forces
37
Full-Time Support Strengths
38
Guard and Reserve Full-Time End Strengths
38
Military Personnel, Army
38
Military Personnel, Navy
40
AOE 1 Replenishment Ships
42
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
42
Marine Corps Security Guards Detachments
44
Military Personnel, Air Force
44
Reserve Personnel, Army
46
Reserve Personnel, Navy
48
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
50
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
52
Test Support Mission
54
National Guard Personnel, Army
54
Army National Guard Workyear Requirements
56
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
56
Title II, Operation and Maintenance
59
Operation and Maintenance Overview
62
Rotational Training Initiatives
63
Real Property Maintenance
63
Base Operations Support
64
Depot Maintenance
64
Spares and War Reserve Materiel
65
Force Protection Initiatives
65
Soldier Support Initiatives
66
Operating Tempo Funding
66
Recruiting and Advertising
66
Small Business Advertising
67
Guard and Reserve Unfunded Requirements
67
Army Training Area Environmental Management
67
Headquarters and Administrative Expenses
67
Consultants and Advisory Services
68
Communications Services
68
Security Programs
68
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
69
Acquisition Contracting and Travel
69
Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data
69
Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings
69
A 76 Studies
70
Urban Warfare
71
Controlled Humidity Preservation Program
71
Operation and Maintenance, Army
71
Logistics and Technology Project
74
Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) Facilities
75
Humanitarian Airlift Aircraft
75
National Training Center Heliport Security
75
Memorial Events
75
General Purpose Tents
76
Abrams Integrated Management Program
76
Information Technology Programs
76
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
76
Oceanographic Research
81
Naval Weapons Station Concorde
81
Portable Firefighting Equipment
82
Vieques Range Complex, Puerto Rico
82
Naval Air Station (NAS) LeMoore
82
Navy Electricity and Electronics Training Series
83
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
83
Blount Island
85
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
85
Interim Contractor Support
89
Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot Program
90
McClellan Air Force Base
90
Enterprise Integration Program
90
REMIS
90
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
90
Performance Measures
92
DLA Warstoppers
93
Defense Acquisition University
93
Family Therapy Program
93
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
93
Information Technology Programs
93
DLA Security Locks
93
DLA Improved Cargo Methods
94
DTRA Treaty Implementation
94
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)-Management Support
94
JCS J MEANS
94
OSD C4ISR
94
OSD Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies
94
OSD Middle East Regional Security Issues
95
OSD Energy Savings Performance Contracts
95
OSD Job Placement Program
95
OSD Youth Development and Leadership Program
95
OSD Youth Development Initiative
95
OSD Management and Contract Support
95
WHS Emergency Notification
95
JCS Mobility Enhancements
95
National Curation Pilot Project
96
Information Systems Security Education
96
Improved General Purpose Tents
96
Department of Defense Education Activity
97
Pine Bluff Arsenal Sustainment Training and Technical Assistance Program
97
Legacy
97
Classified Program
97
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
99
Operation and Maintenace, Navy Reserve
99
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
99
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
103
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
105
Army National Guard Center
107
Armed Forces Reserve Center
107
National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network
107
National Guard Distance Learning
107
NGB Project Management System
107
Repair of UH 1 Engines
108
Moffett Field and March Air Reserve Base
108
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
108
National Guard State Partnership Program
111
C 130 Operations
111
159th Air National Guard Fighter Group
111
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
111
Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials
111
Kosovo Base Camp Construction
112
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
112
Environmental Restoration, Army
112
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
113
Environmental Remediation Contracts
113
Environmental Restoration, Navy
113
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
113
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
113
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
114
Camp Croft
114
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
114
Newmark
114
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
115
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
115
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
116
Title III, Procurement
117
Estimates and Appropriations Summary
117
Special Interest Items
119
Classified Programs
119
Rangeless Training
119
Foreign Comparative Test New Starts
119
Air Force Interim Contractor Support
119
Reprogramming Procedures
120
Army Procurement Issues
120
Unfunded Requirements List
120
Aircraft Procurement, Army
121
Apache A Model Readiness
122
Missile Procurement, Army
124
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
126
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
128
Program Manager for Ammunition
128
Self-Destruct Fuzes
129
Other Procurement, Army
132
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles
134
Information Technology Programs
134
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV)
134
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
142
V 22 Aircraft
143
KC 130J Aircraft
143
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System
144
EA 6B Aircraft
144
Consolidated Automated Support System
145
Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS)
146
Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System-Completely Digital
(TARPS-CD)
146
Rescissions
147
Weapons Procurement, Navy
149
JSOW
149
Rescissions
149
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
151
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
153
Post Delivery Test and Trials
153
Rescissions
153
Other Procurement, Navy
155
Pollution Control Equipment
156
Rescissions
157
Procurement, Marine Corps
163
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
167
22
168
15
168
16
169
C 130J
169
8C
170
C 135 Modifications
170
15 Modifications
171
T 38 Modifications
171
Missile Procurement, Air Force
176
Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program
176
JSOW
177
Titan
177
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
180
Other Procurement, Air Force
182
Procurement, Defense-Wide
187
Electronic Commerce Resource Centers
187
Information Technology Programs
188
Classified Programs
188
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
191
Fire Fighting
191
Support to Non-Profit Agencies
192
Defense Production Act Purchases
194
Information Technology
194
Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem
195
Year 2000 (Y2K) Lessons Learned
195
Inadequate Information Technology Oversight
196
Defense Joint Accounting System
197
Information Technology Oversight-Committee Recommendations
197
Financial Management Regulations
198
Standard Procurement System
199
Armor Officer Distance Learning
199
Power Projection C4 Infrastructure
199
Supercomputing Work
199
Electricity and Electronics Training Series
199
IMDS/REMIS
199
DIMHRS
199
National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network
200
National Guard Distance Learning
200
Maintenance Automated Identification Technology
200
Global Combat Support System--Army
200
Ammunition Automated Identification Technology
201
National Guard Distance Learning-Courseware
201
Joint Systems Education and Training Systems Development
201
Service Information Infrastructure Shortfalls
201
Share in Savings
201
Title IV, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
203
Estimates and Appropriation Summary
203
Special Interest Items
205
Classified Programs
205
Technical Data
205
Experimentation
205
Information Assurance as Part of Independent Operational Testing
205
Special Termination Cost Clause
206
Joint Mission Planning System
206
Utilization of Small Business
206
Anti-Tank Weapons Master Plan
208
Tactical Radios
208
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
208
Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
212
Basic Research
213
Defense Research Sciences
213
Applied Research
213
Ballistics Technology
213
Human Factor Engineering Technology
213
Environmental Quality Technology
213
Advanced Technology Development
214
Medical Advanced Technology
214
Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology
214
Line-Of-Sight Technology Demonstration
214
Joint Tactical Radio
214
Artillery Systems-Demonstration and Validation
215
Operational Systems Development
215
Force XXI, Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program
215
Other Missile Improvement Programs
216
Aircraft Modifications/Product Improvement Program
216
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
221
Joint Experimentation
226
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology
228
Intercooled Recuperative Gas Turbine Engine
228
JSOW
228
Aerial Targets
229
Bone Marrow Registry
229
Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP)
229
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
236
Consolidation and Elimination of Small Programs
236
AF/National Program Consolidation
236
Air Force Science and Technology
236
Wright Patterson Landing Gear Facility
236
Aerospace Propulsion Subsystems Integration
241
Advanced Computing Technology
241
Crew Systems and Personnel Protection Technology
241
Joint Strike Fighter
242
B 2
242
Milstar
243
SBIRS High
243
Development Planning
244
16 Squadrons
244
15 Squadrons
245
Spacelift Range System
245
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
252
Basic Research
255
Chemical and Biological Defense Program
255
Applied Research
255
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
255
Extensible Information Systems
255
Biological Warfare Defense
256
Advanced Technology Development
256
Chemical and Biological Defense Program--Advanced Development
256
Verification Technology Demonstration
257
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations
257
Ballistic Missile Defense
258
National Missile Defense Site Selection
259
Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
260
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
260
Russian American Observational Satellite (RAMOS)
261
Space-Based Laser
261
Sensor and Guidance Technology
261
Discoverer II
262
Physical Security Equipment
262
Coalition Warfare
262
Technical Studies, Support and Analysis
263
Strategic Environmental Research Program
263
Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency Program
263
Tri-Service Directed Energy Center
263
Special Operations Tactical Systems Development
263
Information Technology Program
264
Developmental, Test and Evaluation, Defense
269
Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program
269
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
271
Title V. Revolving and Management Funds
273
Defense Working Capital Funds
273
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Services
273
National Defense Sealift Fund
273
Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) Ships
273
Maritime Prepositioning Force Enhancement Conversion
274
National Defense Features
274
DOD Requirements for Commercial Tanker Ships
275
Massachusetts Maritime Academy Training Ship
275
Sealift Ship Leases
275
Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs
277
Defense Health Program
277
Peer Reviewed Research
278
Tricare Contracts and Pharmacy Costs
278
Custodial Care
278
Fatigue Management
279
Joint Diabetes Project
279
Cervical Cancer Testing
279
Gulf War Illness
280
Computer Based Modeling in Health Care
280
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
280
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
283
Forward Operating Locations
283
Fingerprint Operations
284
C 26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrade
285
Drug Testing
285
A 10 Logistical and Demilitarization Support
285
Office of the Inspector General
285
Title VII. Related Agencies
287
National Foreign Intelligence Program
287
Introduction
287
Classified Annex
287
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and
Disability System Fund
287
Intelligence Community Management Account
288
Payment to Kaho'Olawe Island Conveyance,
Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund
288
National Security Education Trust Fund
288
Title VIII. General Provisions
289
Definition of Program, Project and Activity
289
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles
289
B 52 Force Structure
290
National Missile Defense
290
Aggressor Squadrons
290
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations
291
Medium Extended Air Defense System
291
Military Recruitment Financial Penalties
291
House of Representatives Reporting Requirements
291
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
291
Appropriations Language
292
General Provisions
294
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
297
Transfer of Funds
299
Rescissions
300
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
300
Constitutional Authority
301
Comparison with the Budget Resolution
301
Five-Year Outlay Projections
302
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
302
Additional Views
314
106 th Congress
Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session
106 244
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000
July 20, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. Lewis of California, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2561]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in
explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the
Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000.
BILL TOTALS
Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of
Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year
2000. This bill does not provide appropriations for military
construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear
warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with other
appropriations bills.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for activities funded
in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $263,265,959,000
in new budget (obligational) authority. The amounts recommended by the
Committee in the accompanying bill total $266,061,503,000 in net new
budget authority. This is $2,795,544,000 above the budget estimate;
$15,540,955,000 above the sums made available for the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 1999 in the fiscal year 1999 Defense
Appropriations Act; and, in terms of the total authority available to
the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2000, $1,283,432,000 above the
sums made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999,
when fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations are included.\1\
\1\These figures include $16,095,949,000 in fiscal year 1999 emergency
defense funding included in Public Law 105 277, Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, and Public Law 106 31,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999; and
$1,838,426,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 emergency defense funding also
included in Public Law 106 31.
Offset Folios 12 Insert here
COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS
During its review of the fiscal year 2000 budget, the Subcommittee on
Defense held a total of 17 hearings during the period of February 1999
to March 1999. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,394
pages of transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in
open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the
security classification of the material to be discussed presented no
alternative.
INTRODUCTION
The Committee's consideration of the fiscal year 2000 Defense
Appropriations bill comes as America's armed forces, and the plans and
budgets intended to support them and U.S. security demands in the
future, confront a series of difficult and interrelated challenges.
As evidenced by Operation Allied Force and other recent military and
humanitarian relief operations, the U.S. Armed Forces are still without
question the finest in the world. The overall quality and skill of
America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines remains unsurpassed. And
U.S. training, equipment, and technology are, when considered in their
entirety, still superior to those of any potential adversary, as well as
our allies. Even so, the immediate and long-term challenges confronting
the Department of Defense (DoD), the military services, and policymakers
in the executive and legislative branches remain difficult and complex.
The international environment remains uncertain and potentially
explosive. Recent trends and developments involving Russia, China, India
and Pakistan are assuredly not optimistic, while prospects for other
regional threats--including those which have dominated recent U.S.
military planning, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran--remain both unclear and
unsettling. Meanwhile, political instability persists in many regions,
as does the growing threat posed by the proliferation of technology.
Transnational issues such as ethnic conflicts, terrorism, the
international drug trade and increasingly, ``information age'' threats
continue to loom. And now, the United States, on the heels of a mission
in Bosnia which nears four years in duration, faces an even more
difficult and more protracted commitment to the Balkans in the wake of
the Kosovo conflict.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. military--now having been drawn down
to the lowest force levels since the end of World War II--has been and
will doubtless continue to be engaged globally. Yet, even before the
recent hostilities involving Kosovo and Iraq, a combination of overseas
commitments, new missions, shrinking force structure, aging equipment,
and insufficient and, in some instances, misprioritized budgets joined
to bring the current and future readiness of the U.S. military into
question. These problems have created a punishing pace of operational
tempo and a decline in overall quality of life for servicemembers and
their families, which when combined with the effects of a strong
economy, have created a serious military manpower crisis. Within the
past year, for the first time in over two decades the U.S. Army, Navy
and Air Force have failed by significant margins to meet recruiting
goals, while these services' retention rates for experienced personnel
in critical specialty areas (such as Air Force pilots) have reached
dangerously low levels. In the meantime, serious readiness and weapons
modernization shortfalls persist. Recognizing these problems, both
Congress and now the Administration have proposed significant increases
in defense spending above previously planned levels.
Basis for Committee Recommendations
The Committee strongly believes that, in many ways, this year is a
potential watershed for future defense planning, budgets, and programs.
It is significant that there now appears to be a general consensus
between the Administration and the Congress that the U.S. military's
operational, budgetary and programmatic needs call for a steady and
sustained increase in defense spending. Yet events of just the past
eight months--notably, the strengths and weaknesses displayed during the
conduct of Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force; the deployment of
U.S. forces in support of the Kosovo Stabilization Force (KFOR); and the
ongoing domestic debate over future government spending--combine to
reinforce serious questions regarding the prospects for and adequacy of
proposed defense budgets, be it the President's or Congressional
alternatives.
Therefore, the Committee has endeavored to not only consider the
details of the Department's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget request,
but has also attempted to measure that budget and the new fiscal years
2000 2005 Future Years' Defense Plan (FYDP) against a number of factors.
These include the international challenges cited above; the need to not
only plan for current DoD needs but those likely to be confronted in
2010, 2020 and beyond; and the already well-documented and articulated
manpower, readiness and modernization needs of the DoD generally and the
services specifically.
The Committee also gave careful consideration to three additional
areas in developing its recommendations:
(a) The overall Federal budget debate and the strengths and
weaknesses of the Administration's defense budgets in that context;
(b) Neglect by certain DoD agencies of law, regulation and practices
concerning the use of appropriated funds, including the initiation of
new programs and diversion of funds provided for one purpose to another
without the required congressional notification or approval--events
which the Committee views as most troubling given the constitutional
imperative that appropriated funds be put to the uses specifically
delineated by the Congress; and
(c) The actual experience derived from the recent combat operations
involving Iraq and Yugoslavia; the degree to which the Future Years'
Defense Plan and the individual services' budgets address a series of
longstanding needs of the regional commanders-in-chief (CINCs) and our
forces in the field; and whether the nation's current national security
strategy (which calls for the U.S. military to carry out and win two,
near-simultaneous ``major theater wars'') can reasonably expect to be
supported given current defense planning and programming.
The President's Fiscal Year 2000 2005 Defense Program
The Committee finds, with some qualification, that the fiscal year
2000 budget and the overall fiscal years 2000 2005 defense program
announced by the President this February is a more realistic attempt to
match ``military means to goals'' than previous budget submissions. This
new budget program calls for overall increases in previously planned
defense spending levels of approximately $112 billion over the period
2000 2005. Of this amount, a significant portion (nearly $35 billion) is
targeted specifically at improving military pay and benefits, including
repeal of the military retirement program changes adopted in 1986. Other
significant increases are programmed for readiness and operation and
maintenance funding generally, as well as critical weapons modernization
programs.
Despite these noteworthy proposals, the Committee remains deeply
troubled about whether this budget program can in fact meet both
immediate and longer-term national security challenges. Three specific
problems come to mind:
The FY 2000 2005 Defense Budget Is Linked To Large Increases in
Overall Discretionary Spending: The President's new fiscal year 2000
2005 defense program proposes steady and sustained growth in defense
discretionary spending, from roughly $272 billion in FY 1999 (not
including enacted emergency supplemental appropriations) to about $330
billion annually in FY 2005. The Committee believes such growth is
justified, especially with numerous peacekeeping commitments and the
need to reinvigorate weapons modernization accounts. However, the
Committee also believes that it is a fair question to consider whether a
defense program whose very viability hinges on such growth is in fact
realistic. The defense budget cannot be viewed in insolation from the
overall budget dynamic, involving spending levels for discretionary and
entitlement programs, potential changes in the the tax code, and
estimates of the government surplus.
Such questions about long-term budget levels are particularly
important to the DoD. Unlike most federal agencies, the DoD develops a
multi-year budget program with some degree of fidelity, essential for an
agency with hundreds of major equipment procurement and developmental
efforts. Given the current uncertainty about the future budgetary
environment, the Committee views with some caution any long-term
revitalization plan for the DoD which has at its core an assumption of
very robust outyear defense spending levels. This is especially
important in light of plans being developed by each of the military
services to make long-term commitments to major production programs
which tend to ``squeeze'' other items in the budget to unacceptable
levels.
New, ``Unbudgeted'' Defense Budget Commitments Are Already Apparent:
Since the budget was presented to the Congress in February, two new
developments have arisen which will require major revisions to the
existing DoD budget plan. The first involves Congressional action on
military pay and benefits, as expressed through both House- and
Senate-passed versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000. The President's budget proposes a sizable increase
over previously programmed amounts for military compensation. Both the
House and Senate, most notably through increasing the size of the
proposed fiscal year 2000 military pay raise (from 4.4 to 4.8 percent),
but also through other initiatives, have now voted for authorization
changes which pose considerable unbudgeted outyear costs for the
DoD--perhaps more than $10 billion through fiscal year 2005.
Long-term, unbudgeted costs of continued contingency deployments are
also escalating, especially those resulting from NATO missions in the
Balkans. The Committee observes the current DoD budget plan was premised
on a gradual drawdown of U.S. forces in Bosnia, with no funds budgeted
after fiscal year 2001 for any Balkan peacekeeping force or for
continued sanctions enforcement around Iraq. Until late last year, the
average cost of these two missions had appeared to stabilize at between
$1.5 2.0 billion per year. Realistically, one must assume there will be
costs of some greater magnitude from 2001 2005 stemming from continued
U.S. deployments associated with Bosnia and Iraq; and now, these
unbudgeted costs will be compounded by those resulting from Operation
Joint Guardian, the U.S. participation in KFOR. Using conservative
planning factors, the Committee believes these could result in up to $25
billion in unbudgeted, unprogrammed costs over the FYDP.
The Committee believes it it essential that these issues be kept in
plain view as the Congress develops its defense spending recommendations
for fiscal year 2000 and beyond. They clearly cast a long shadow over
DoD's overall Future Year's Defense Program, and the viability of
planned modernization budgets in particular since personnel and
readiness programs must continue to receive top budget priority.
``Creative Accounting'' In The Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request.-- Of
immediate relevance to the Committee's consideration of the fiscal year
2000 defense appropriations request is what senior Department officials
have publicly conceded is a FY 2000 2005 program built largely on
optimistic economic assumptions and, for fiscal year 2000, ``one-time
initiatives'' which the Committee can most charitably describe as
``creative accounting''. The most obvious and blatant of these are the
budget proposals to offset nearly $5 billion in new fiscal year 2000
programmatic increases with a like amount of budget authority
``offsets''--a $3.1 billion reduction from a ``one-time'' proposal to
incrementally fund the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction program
(that is, providing only half the required budget authority needed to
actually complete proposed military construction projects); and an
unspecified cut of $1.65 billion (in the form of a proposed, non-program
specific general reduction) embedded in the budget request for the
fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill.
The Committee finds small solace in the refrain of many senior
Administration officials that its fiscal year 2000 defense budget ``has
a $12 billion increase'' over previous plans, much of which is for
critical personnel and readiness needs--when its budget really only pays
for slightly more than half of those increases.
In essence, the Department's FY 2000 budget tries to have it both
ways: it proposes needed increases in key programs, but ``offsets'' this
growth with ``cuts'' having no substance.
The Committee will not subscribe to such a ``quick fix'' mentality.
In both this bill, and the Military Construction bill reported by the
Committee, it has rejected these proposals out of hand. Rather, to meet
DoD's unfunded requirements, finance congressional initiatives and
backfill for the budget's creative accounting, the Committee proposes an
increase over the total fiscal year 2000 defense spending level by the
President, combined with a wide range of program reductions, rescissions
of previously appropriated funds and other initiatives. This approach is
not only justified on the merits, but is a direct consequence of the
Administration's having sent up a fiscal year 2000 budget submission
which itself was ``oversubscribed'' by $4.75 billion.
NEGLECT OF TRADITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AND ACQUISITION PROGRAM PRACTICES
Adding to the difficulties confronting the Committee in its
consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget request are serious
budgeting and funding execution issues regarding appropriations for
defense acquisition programs. These are occuring with increasing
frequency in both the budget requests submitted by the Department of
Defense as well as in the execution of program funding once
appropriations have been provided by the Congress. Throughout this
report there will be more specific descriptions of these and related
issues. Of particular concern is the failure of certain DoD entities to
comply with many existing procedures governing the expenditure of
appropriated funds.
One of the highest duties of the Congress is to exercise the mandate
in Clause 7, Section 9, Article I of the Constitution of the United
States that ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by law.'' In terms of appropriations
provided to the Department of Defense, this mandate has evolved over
time as a result of statute, appropriations law, court rulings, and
executive branch regulations; decades of appropriations implementation
and resulting ``practices and rules''; and what the Committee regards as
an ongoing discussion with the DoD and its component departments and
agencies over budget rules and appropriate procedures regarding the use
of appropriated funds.
The Committee's perspective is one of ensuring that funds made
available in appropriations acts are in fact put to the use intended by
the elected members of Congress, under the terms and conditions the
Congress and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees place on the
funding in question. This is a responsibility the Constitution clearly
intended for the Congress--the so-called power of the purse--and
therefore, the Committee does not take issues regarding the use of
appropriated funds lightly. However, given the sheer size, complexity,
and dynamism of both the real world and the funding environments that
the Department of Defense and the U.S. military operates, the Committee
is sensitive to and has in fact actively engaged the Department on
countless occasions to ensure that the DoD has the funding flexibility
it needs to respond rapidly to emerging circumstances. The Committee
notes that unless specific restrictions have been enacted into law, in
most instances the most restrictive rules require the DoD, in accordance
with certain pre-established thresholds, to provide the Committee with
prior notification or, through the reprogramming process, to seek the
Committee's prior approval for contemplated funding shifts. All the
Committee demands is that these well-established procedures--many
enshrined in statute or appropriations law, not just custom or
practice--be followed.
Regrettably, in recent years the Committee has observed a steady
erosion of departmental compliance with these standards, prompting the
Committee to actively address these problems in recent appropriations
acts and accompanying Committee reports. The Committee further observes
these abuses have generally been most numerous and blatant with respect
to defense acquisition programs--and of late, those managed by the
acquisition communities within the Department of the Air Force, the
Department of the Army, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
For example, with respect to the Air Force, despite recent Committee
direction and, in several instances, new appropriations law, the
Committee finds that both in execution of funds provided in
appropriations acts and in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission the
Air Force acquisition community continues to ignore and violate a wide
range of appropriations practices and acquisition rules. Details on
these specific instances can be found elsewhere in this report, but a
short summary of such Air Force abuses includes:
(a) In its fiscal year 2000 budget the Air Force continues to
blithely ignore specific Committee direction and law intended to ensure
that funds appropriated for one purpose--for example, weapons
procurement--are in fact used for that purpose and not for other
efforts, such as research and development, by:
(1) Requesting hundreds of millions of dollars in various
procurement programs, when in fact the intended use is to support
operation and maintenance funding needs (in violation of DoD policy);
(2) Requesting substantial procurement funds for a program (the F 22
fighter) when in fact the use of the funds is for development (in
violation of specific Congressional direction), and
(3) Requesting substantial development funds for a program (the
MILSTAR satellite), when the intent is to use the funds for procurement
(in violation of a provision of law);
(b) Violation of both new start program regulations and law, as well
as standard reprogramming procedures, by using fiscal year 1999 funds to
begin a new start, several hundred-million dollar production program
which the Congress never formally approved (the C 5 avionics
modernization program)--and did so by diverting funds specifically
provided by the Congress for another program; and
(c) Initiation of a new Special Access Program without prior
Congressional notification as required by law.
Regarding the Army, it has in several instances ignored specific
Committee or House-Senate conference report direction on major programs,
to include:
(a) Entering into a new multi-year production contract for the Family
of Medium Tactical Vehicles, despite specific Committee direction to
defer such action until it first identified and then formally submitted
to the Congress, an approved plan to fix significant technical and
safety problems plaguing thousands of vehicles already delivered and in
service;
(b) Negotiating a multi-year production contract for the TOW Improved
Target Acquisition System (ITAS) despite both fiscal year 1999 Committee
and appropriations conference committee direction explicitly denying
approval of the ITAS multi-year contract; and
(c) In conjunction with OSD, explicitly ignoring fiscal year 1999
conference committee direction and using Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstration funds for the Line-of-Sight Tank (LOSAT) program.
Regarding OSD acquisition officials, in addition to the example
involving LOSAT cited above, the Committee is little short of amazed
when it comes to their actions on the Medium Altitude Air Defense
(MEADS) program. This program was specifically terminated in the
conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1999 Defense
Appropriations Act. Internal DoD financial management documents issued
this spring noted this action and correctly stated that: ``This item has
been denied by the Congress and is not subject to reprogramming''
(emphasis added). Nonetheless, the Committee has since learned that
officials in the OSD acquisition structure as well as in the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization, an OSD acquisition organization, directed
the use of over $2 million of funds specifically provided for another
program to continue MEADS-related activities, and actually announced the
winner of the MEADS contract competition. All for a program explicitly
terminated in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations process.
The Committee believes these and similar instances raise fundamental
questions regarding DoD program oversight and compliance with existing
law and regulations. The Committee is also compelled to note such
actions contribute to the Committee's uncertainty regarding the adequacy
of the Department's proposed defense budget and program planning. The
extent of such problems gives the Committee little confidence that the
military service or defense agency in question is requesting
appropriations for its major acquisition programs based on solid cost
estimates, testing and production milestones, and firm estimates and
commitments to funding requirements. In this sense, such actions are
extremely corrosive to sensible program management, defense planning and
budgeting. And it severely weakens the working relationship between the
executive branch--charged with proposing, then managing, programs if
funded--and the legislative branch, which in providing funding must have
confidence that the budget and program proposals underlying the funding
requests in question are accurate and executable.
The Committee could speculate as to the reason behind this growing
trend--for example, the pressure to deal with weapons modernization
demands following more than a decade of inflation-adjusted cuts in
funding--but to do so is to justify these practices. While sympathetic
to budget pressures, and aware of the desire of the acquisition
community to exercise as much control and flexibility over its programs
as possible, in keeping with its constitutional duties the Committee
simply cannot excuse violations of appropriations and acquisition law,
regulation and practice.
``Lessons Learned'' From Recent Military Operations
The combat operations over Iraq and Yugoslavia (Operations Desert Fox
and Allied Force, respectively) and their immediate aftermath have
already been instructive in terms of ``lessons learned''--not only for
DoD, the Joint Staff, the services, and the regional commands, but also
for others in the executive branch and Congress. These missions have
confirmed the wisdom of prudent investments over the years in so-called
``force multipliers''. These include such programs as advanced
reconnaissance and intelligence collection; improved command, control
and communications; selective ``platform'' upgrades, such as night
attack capability for tactical strike assets, or conventional,
all-weather precision weapons delivery capability for the heavy bomber
force; and a new generation of precision-guided munitions.
Yet these technological improvements are only one aspect of the many
factors essential to battlefield success. While much attention is being
directed at the new capabilities brought to bear in these operations,
the Committee insists that without the less-glamorous ``basics''--such
as effective logistics systems; solid training; and most importantly,
keeping a highly motivated and quality force--our technological advances
mean little.
Accordingly, the Committee not only acknowledges the exemplary
performance of the U.S. forces deployed in direct support of these
operations, but all those who helped prepare, train, and equip those
forces. This provides a vivid reminder to Congress and the senior
leadership in the executive branch of the shared responsibility to work
in concert with the senior military leadership of the Department and the
forces in the field to fashion a defense program which balances these
competing prerogatives.
In keeping with this obligation, then, while laudatory of the
performance of U.S. forces in these recent engagements, the Committee
must register its deep concern over a number of issues which these
recent operations have highlighted.
Current Force Structure and Current Commitments Are Not In Balance.
--It is now all too apparent that the military services are not yet
properly reconfigured from their old ``Cold War'' orientation, or are
simply undermanned or underequipped in certain key categories, to meet
the Nation's emerging global commitments at an acceptable level of risk.
In the immediate aftermath of the Yugoslav campaign, the Chiefs of Staff
of Army and Air Force, in different yet equally compelling ways, have
brought this issue into sharp focus. The new Army Chief of Staff has
pronounced publicly that, without new and innovative thinking in his
service--including a fundamental restructuring of the Army's heavy and
light units--his service risks losing strategic and tactical relevance.
The Air Force Chief of Staff declares that the immediate well-being of
his service--stretched by years of unanticipated operations,
unprecedented rates of ``peacetime'' operational tempo, declining
readiness indicators, personnel turbulence and shortages, and now, two
major air campaigns within the past eight months--makes a lengthy
``stand-down'', including a significant reprieve from overseas
deployments, essential if he is to properly reconstitute his force.
This Committee recognizes these are complex issues, with each Service
facing its own unique challenges. But it is clear the strategy, roles
and missions, and force structure assumptions underpinning the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) two years ago--which now form the basis
of current DoD planning--must be revisited. This is a considerable
undertaking, made more difficult by the uncertain world situation, the
budget environment and many difficult resource allocation issues in each
service. Nevertheless, the Committee expresses its conviction that, in
light of the additional commitments incurred by U.S. forces since the
QDR was conducted, as well as the serious personnel and readiness
problems that have emerged over the past few years, the Secretary of
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the senior leadership of each
of the military services, and ultimately, the President and the Congress
must deal with these issues head on, as soon as possible.
Fundamental Problems Persist In Matching Resource Allocations To
Operational Requirements.-- For years, the Committee has expressed deep
concern that the DoD's annual budget submissions have consistently
failed to adequately address certain critical warfighting needs. This
disconnect was illustrated during the early stages of Operation Allied
Force, when the Air Force had to submit an urgent reprogramming request,
and then an emergency supplemental budget request for the Conventional
Air-Launched Cruise Missile (the Air Force's only long-range, all
weather conventionally armed stand-off weapon), because inventories had
been drawn down to unacceptable levels. The Committee notes this problem
would have been far worse had not the Congress in the mid-1990's
provided funding for 250 CALCMs, which had not been budgeted by the Air
Force or the DoD. Had this not occurred, CALCM would not have even been
available for Operations Desert Fox or Allied Force.
The Committee also notes that many of the innovations which were used
to great effect in Operation Allied Force--such as the use of B 2 and B
1 bombers in a conventional bombing role--are available now only because
of congressional actions to both initiate and accelerate many of the
upgrades required for these missions. For example, the initial
deployment of a precision-guided conventional weapon on the B 2--which
served as a clear precursor to its subsequently being equipped with the
highly effective JDAM munition--was the so-called ``GATS GAM'' interim
weapon, a congressional initiative.
These examples, unfortunately, are symptomatic of many recent budget
decisions. The Committee has stated its view repeatedly that many
programs with strong warfighting applications ofttimes are given short
shrift in annual service budget submissions. The reasons for this vary,
but are usually found in either budget pressures, service parochialism,
and the aversion of many of the services' acquisition hierarchies to
upgrade existing systems (as opposed to developing a new system from
scratch). The Committee has also observed that these problems are
especially acute when the capability or system in question has a
``joint'' or ``national'' character, and is needed by multiple services
or joint warfighting commands. Regrettably, even when such capabilities
are of great utility to forces in the field, they often involve missions
or capabilities--such as logistics, transportation, intelligence
collection and reconnaissance, and electronic combat--which the military
services often fail to consider on a par with what each considers its
core requirements.
SHORTAGES OF LOW-DENSITY, HIGH-DEMAND ASSETS
The Committee is especially troubled as many of these deficiencies,
including shortages in so-called ``low-density, high-demand'' assets,
have been well known for some time. These include, but are not limited
to: electronic warfare aircraft and specialized jamming equipment;
tactical intelligence collection and dissemination assets (ranging from
collection assets such as the U 2, RIVET JOINT, AWACS and JSTARS
aircraft and tactical UAVs; interoperable, secure communications and
command and control, to include new data links and data fusion
capability); and tactical airlift, aerial refueling capability and other
transportation and logistics support platforms and equipment. The
Committee has consistently supported additions over DoD budget requests
for such programs over the years. Nevertheless, continued shortages in
these and many other categories clearly posed operational constraints
during Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force. This not only impeded the
regional commands charged with prosecuting the air campaigns, but also
other regional commanders who were confronted with the physical
diversion of assets from their areas of responsibility and other
unexpected resource shortfalls.
The Committee's concern about these problems is not new, and it has
demonstrated it will not shy from taking actions to ensure that our
forces in the field are not at risk or caught short. In this regard, the
recently-enacted emergency supplemental appropriations act which
provided funding for the conduct of Operation Allied Force (Public Law
106 31) created a new appropriations account, the ``Operational Rapid
Response Transfer Fund'', that was expressly intended to provide a
funding source to meet immediate shortfalls and needs identified by the
regional CINCs. The Committee understands the Department will soon make
use of the $300,000,000 provided by the Congress in this fund to address
some of these most urgent problems, such as those plaguing the limited
inventory of Navy EA 6B jamming aircraft. The Committee commends the
senior leadership of the Department for expeditiously following through
on the Congress' intent in this regard.
However, it is clear much more must be done. As with the questions
raised earlier in this report about the proper size and organization of
each of the military services, a continued failure by the DoD
generally--and the military services and defense agencies
specifically--to consistently link operational needs to decisions about
resource allocations and defense program development carries with it
serious implications for the ability of the U.S. military to carry out
the current national security strategy. This is not just a theoretical
discussion, nor one which the Committee believes can be deferred. The
Committee bill, across all services and defense agencies, is intended to
bring these questions to the forefront--and in the instance of one of
the military services--the United States Air Force--the Committee
believes these problems are now so acute that it must take a series of
immediate and forceful steps.
United States Air Force--At A Crossroads?
The air campaigns against Iraq and Yugoslavia, which on the whole
featured an exemplary level of professionalism, technical sophistication
and skill, were conducted and supported in large measure by the men and
women of the United States Air Force. To them, and their colleagues in
the other branches of the military and defense agencies who also played
important roles in these operations, the Committee expresses its
gratitude and respect for their service and bravery.
In the Committee's view, this performance on the part of the Air
Force is all the more remarkable in light of the serious problems which,
over the past few years, have increasingly beset this service as it
struggles with the twin dilemmas of redefining its role in the post Cold
War era while being called to carry out an increasing number of missions
with fewer people. Among the most serious of these problems:
--For the first time since 1979, the Air Force will miss its
recruiting goals for new enlistees--by nearly 2,600 individuals. This is
especially noteworthy given the Air Force's success since the transition
to an all-volunteer force in attracting many more potential recruits
than it actually requires.
--The Air Force also is coping with serious retention problems,
particularly in the midyear grades, with acute shortages in a large
number of specialty career fields ranging from air traffic controllers
to security police. Of considerable concern is that the Air Force is
already suffering from a steep shortage of pilots, with an existing
deficit of over 1,100 that is projected to approach 2,000 within the
next three years.
--Overall Air Force readiness--as measured by the mission capable
rates of aircraft and other key systems--has steadily declined in each
of the past eight years, with an overall rating of less than 75 percent
(an eleven percent decline since 1991) prior to the onset of Operation
Allied Force.
--In the past three years a major aviation spare parts shortfall has
arisen in the Air Force (as well as the Navy), due largely to faulty
estimates which failed to accurately reflect the effects of increased
operational tempo on aging equipment. Despite the appropriation of
roughly $2 billion over budgeted amounts for spare parts over the past
three years, continued operational demands and the time required to
procure the necessary parts and perform required maintenance make it
likely that Air Force operational readiness rates and equipment
availability will remain low for the foreseeable future.
--Despite the proposed increases in the President's budget
submission, major funding shortfalls persist across nearly all Air Force
mission and functional areas. In February 1999 the Air Force Chief of
Staff submitted to Congress an ``unfunded priority list'' for fiscal
year 2000 alone of over $2.3 billion. The following month, in response
to a request from the House Armed Services Committee, senior Air Force
officials provided a detailed unfunded shortfall list covering the
period of the current Future Years Defense Plan (fiscal years 2000
2005). After adjusting this list (removing from it fiscal years 1999 and
2000 needs tied to the contingency operations involving Iraq and Kosovo,
most of which were dealt with in the emergency supplemental
appropriations act enacted in late May), the Air Force still documents
unfunded needs totaling over $14 billion (emphasis added).
All of these problems were present prior to the air campaigns against
Iraq and Yugoslavia, which senior Air Force officials freely admit
stretched existing Air Force personnel and assets to the limit. For
example, during Operation Allied Force, the Air Force was compelled to
implement the so-called ``stop-loss'' program, whereby individuals whose
terms of service were due to expire were formally notified that they
could be kept on active duty for an indefinite period owing to
operational needs. At the time stop-loss was invoked, the Air Force
indicated nearly 34,000 servicemembers in critical specialty areas could
have their tours of duty involuntarily extended as a result of Operation
Allied Force and the Air Force's other global missions.
Air Force operational assets were also clearly taxed by Operations
Desert Fox and Allied Force. The most acute problems occurred in certain
categories--such as reconnaissance, airlift, and aerial refueling--where
the Air Force carries a disproportionate share of, if not the only,
capability within the U.S. armed forces to support major military
operations. The Air Force itself describes its unique capabilities as
``Global Reach, Global Power''. One may then ask, can the Air Force
today or in the future deliver on this motto's promise? These weaknesses
give the Committee doubts about the U.S. military's ability to carry out
the ``near-simultaneous, two major theater war'' capability that the
national military strategy is premised upon. Of even greater concern is
the fact that the six-year Air Force budget program demonstrably falls
short of meeting both existing and projected requirements in these
critical areas.
Now, following Operation Allied Force, the Air Force Chief of Staff
has made clear his view that the Air Force must conduct a ``stand-down''
of at least several months duration, to reconstitute its forces and give
its officers and airmen a chance to recover from the operational tempo
which is the root cause of many of the Air Force's personnel and
readiness problems. The Committee has been advised that this standdown,
as envisioned by the Air Force, would be of sufficient scope and length
that many current operational requirements being carried out by the Air
Force would either have to be transferred to the other services or left
unaddressed.
The Committee believes such candor on the part of senior Air Force
leadership--clearly at variance from the typical ``can do'' attitude
which the military services often take to an extreme--deserves both
respect and careful consideration. It says much about the current state
in which the Air Force finds itself.
The Committee recognizes many of these problems are not of the Air
Force's making, nor could they have been forecast. Many stem from a
series of decisions and events which began in 1989 91, starting with the
fall of the Berlin Wall, the resulting dissolution of the Warsaw Pact
and the Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf War, and the acceleration of a
major defense build-down in response to these events and federal budget
pressures. The Committee is well aware of the difficulties these changes
posed for all the military services, and the Air Force in particular.
Moreover, the operational employment of U.S. forces has changed
markedly in recent years. The Air Force and its sister services not only
continue to carry existing regional commitments and their potential
warfighting demands, but now find themselves regularly deployed on a
large scale on what had just a few years ago been called
``non-traditional missions'', such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement,
and humanitarian relief operations. Each of the services--not just the
Air Force--have and will continue to struggle with these new missions.
With 20/20 hindsight, the Committee believes that the Air Force's
recognition of the scale of its modernization dilemma may have
inadvertently contributed to many of the personnel and readiness
problems it now confronts. The Committee remembers vividly how just two
years ago the then-Chief of Staff of the Air Force explained to the
Committee how his service had consciously decided to give up force
structure and manning levels in order to free up additional resources
for modernization. Now, that gamble, and others taken by this Service,
have come home to roost, leading to what the Committee believes is an
Air Force personnel and readiness crisis, even while the Air Force still
confronts a modernization crisis of considerable size and scope.
Air Force Modernization Issues
It is indisputable that the Air Force has many unmet needs in
modernization, many of which were on clear display during Operation
Allied Force.
There is a requirement for at least five additional Joint STARS
surveillance aircraft beyond those currently funded or budgeted--yet
after this year, the Air Force budget provides none.
At least 20 percent of the KC 135 aerial refueling fleet--which uses
1950's and 1960's vintage airframes--has yet to be modernized with
improved engines and other equipment which will not only extend its
service life but greatly increase its operational flexibility and
availability. The Air Force budget fails to request even one tanker
conversion in its budget until fiscal year 2002.
The Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Transportation Command, declares a need
for at least 150 C 130J tactical airlift aircraft--yet the Air Force
budget fails to buy any until fiscal year 2002 and active duty units are
not scheduled to receive any new C 130's until 2006.
Due to fiscal constraints the Air Force has restructured the
next-generation of early warning satellites used for detection of
ballistic missile launches, the Space-Based Infrared System-High and
-Low. In so doing, at least in the case of SBIRS-High, the Air Force has
taken a fully funded, well-crafted acquisition program and within less
than nine months, restructured it into a higher risk program, with a two
year slip in fielding, excessive concurrency between development and
production--and in the process generated an unfunded shortfall of nearly
$100 million in its fiscal year 2000 budget.
These are just a few examples where the Committee believes the Air
Force acquisition program and budget priorities are inconsistent with
actual need. Programs relied upon by forces in the field, and in some
instances the National Command Authority, are not funded adequately or
deferred. Other efforts, which may have some intrinsic merit but are
really nothing more than expensive demonstration projects, receive
increased budget allocations. Meanwhile, as described earlier in this
report, the Air Force acquisition community seems at times to be
completely oblivious to the legal and DoD policies in place governing
the proper use of appropriated funds.
f 22
The centerpiece of the Air Force's modernization program for at least
the past decade, along with the C 17 transport aircraft, has been its
next generation air superiority fighter, the F 22. The F 22 was
originally conceived in the early 1980's to counter a projected threat
driven by the expectation that the then-Soviet Union would couple the
sheer size of its force structure with significant technological
advances in fighter and air-to-air technology. Following the demise of
the Soviet Union and the huge downsizing of the now Russian military,
the Air Force has continued development of the F 22 based largely on
what it states is its desire to guarantee air superiority over any
potential adversary for the foreseeable future. The original F 22
inventory objective of 750 aircraft has since been revised downwards, to
a figure of 339 today, enough to equip three wings plus expected
attrition reserve requirements.
As currently configured, there is little doubt that the F 22, if it
meets its performance specifications, would far outclass any single
fighter known to be under development. Even with the change in the
threat environment, little of the F 22's high performance
characteristics have changed in the past decade. The Air Force would
concede that both development and production of the F 22 is indeed a
challenging task, for that is the purpose of the program--to develop a
fighter so capable that it will guarantee U.S. forces air superiority
for decades once it is fielded.
However, the ambitious technical goals of the F 22, which include a
series of new production processes as well as the most advanced avionics
and electronics ever fielded on a U.S. aircraft, have led to a series of
delays in the F 22 development program. Juxtaposed with the Air Force's
desired fielding schedule, this has led to a program whose recent
history has been marked by continual cost growth and whose current
acquisition profile would, even if examined in isolation, raise serious
questions about the overall affordability and feasibility of this
program.
Given these factors, and the magnitude of other Air Force problems in
personnel, readiness and modernization, the Committee decided to make
the F 22 a focus of its deliberations. The following sections cites the
key points which it took into consideration when making its
recommendations.
22 concerns
F 22 has been experiencing technical problems.-- The F 22 has
experienced several technical problems including: manufacturing problems
with titanium castings; delamination of longerons; structural weaknesses
in aft fuselage; anomalies in brakes, inertial reference system and
environmental control system; nagging fuel leaks; problems with engine
low pressure turbine blades, high pressure turbine blades, and engine
combustors; and problems with excessive engine vibration. The Air Force
reports that there are 97 issues limiting aircraft operations and 68
issues limiting ground maintenance. There are already indications that
further flight testing in fiscal year 1999 will be curtailed while the
Air Force labors to correct these technical problems. While the
Committee recognizes that the sophisticated technology intended for use
in the F 22 makes such technical problems likely, it also must consider
that the successful resolution of these problems will further both delay
schedules and drive up costs.
Affordability of the F 22 is questionable.-- Based on Air Force
acquisition reports, the F 22--even without further cost growth--is
projected to cost three times as much as the aircraft it replaces (the F
15). The unit cost of the six F 22's proposed to be procured with fiscal
year 2000 funds is $300 million per plane compared to a $55 million per
plane cost for the F 15. To finance such an expensive program, DoD's
modernization plan requires unprecedented levels of spending on tactical
aircraft over the next 20 years. In fact, DoD's tactical aircraft
modernization plan requires twice the historical percentage of
procurement dollars to buy roughly half the number of aircraft.
The Air Force has not demonstrated it can control F 22 costs.-- Ten
years ago, the Committee recommended termination of the F 22 (then
called the Advanced Tactical Fighter) based in part on concerns over
cost growth and unrealistic budgeting. Then, the Air Force told the
Committee that F 22 development would cost $14 billion, a $900 million
increase from the estimate provided six months earlier. Since then, the
program has experienced a decade of cost growth with the current
estimate for F 22 development now exceeding $23 billion. In the last six
months alone, the development cost increased another $700 million and
the production cost of just the first 6 aircraft increased $300 million.
The Committee notes, that without any further cost growth, the F 22
program is budgeted for more than $23 billion over the next six years
alone, and has a ``total cost to complete'' of $40 billion assuming the
Air Force's current schedule, cost estimates, and inventory objective of
339 remain static. Independent cost estimates developed within the
Pentagon, the Congressional Budget Office, and the General Accounting
Office all indicate that the Air Force production cost estimates are
excessively optimistic. For example, the Cost Analysis Improvement Group
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, responsible for
developing independent cost estimates for the Secretary, believes the F
22's total production costs are understated by at least $9 billion.
The current F 22 acquisition plan has a high potential for even
further cost growth.-- The F 22 is a technically challenging program
combining stealth, advanced sensors and avionics, and the ability to
cruise at supersonic speeds. The Air Force will not finish basic testing
of these capabilities for another four years. To date, the program has
completed only five percent of the required testing. The advanced
sensors and avionics (perhaps the highest risk elements of the program)
have not been tested on the F 22 at all. Yet this year's budget proposes
production funding for six aircraft.
Overall, the Air Force's acquisition strategy requires the purchase
of over $13 billion worth of aircraft before completion of basic
operational testing. The unit cost of these initial aircraft increased
40 percent over the last 2 years, and any problems found during the next
four years of testing will simply add to these costs.
U.S. has overwhelming numerical advantage of advanced fighters
without F 22.-- Current threat projections for 2010 indicate that the
United States will have a 5 to 1 numerical advantage of advanced
fighters against our most challenging adversaries without the F 22.
Against what could be considered the most likely medium term adversaries
used in Air Force planning scenarios, the United States enjoys a numeric
advantage of 26 of our advanced fighters for every one belonging to our
adversaries.
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
The Committee also examined potential alternatives to the current F
22 program, and makes the following findings.
F 15 economic service life extends beyond 2015.-- The Air Force has
justified the need for the F 22 in part as a replacement for aging F 15
aircraft. However, service life data from the Air Force indicates that
the F 15 can exceed 16,000 flying hours without major structural
changes. The average age of the F 15 inventory is expected to be only
8000 flying hours by 2015.
F 15 can be improved to provide greatly enhanced combat
capability.-- F 15 combat capabilities can be improved substantially
with upgraded radars, jammers, and helmet mounted targeting systems. The
most cost effective upgrade may be a new datalink which allows aircraft
to share target information. Air Force testimony to the Committee this
year described the so-called ``Link 16'' datalink as ``the most
significant increase in fighter avionics since the introduction of the
on-board radar.'' Tests with this $200,000 per aircraft upgrade to the F
15 have demonstrated a five-fold increase in air combat kill ratios.
(The Committee fails to understand why the Air Force has neglected to
budget for this modestly priced upgrade for all its combat coded F 15s,
while it chooses to request $150 million in fiscal year 2000 to redesign
F 22 parts that have already become obsolete. The Committee notes that
while this upgrade makes the F 15 five times more effective in the air
combat mission, the Air Force only requires the F 22 to be twice as
effective as the F 15.)
JSF has robust air-to-air capabilities and will be available in
fiscal year 2007. --The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), in development to
produce a lower cost, yet highly capable replacement for Navy F/A 18's,
Marine Corps F/A 18's and AV 8B's, and Air Force F 16's is scheduled to
begin production deliveries in 2007. This program will be badly needed
in this timeframe to begin replacing these aircraft types, which
comprise the vast majority of the U.S. tactical fighter force, as their
age and usage rates make a replacement in this timeframe essential,
While incorporating advanced technology similar to that being developed
for the F 22, the much higher inventory objective (over 2,800 aircraft)
plus the lack of any other alternatives at present to deal with the
block obsolescence issue make the JSF, in the Committee's view, one of
the DoD's highest acquisition priorities.
Like the F 22, the Joint Strike Fighter combines stealth and advanced
avionics to provide a robust air-to-air capability. Unlike the F 22, the
JSF is being designed to be an affordable joint aircraft with far
superior air-to-ground capabilities.
U.S. has other advantages in the area of air dominance.-- While not
minimizing the potential advantages which accrue to the side with a high
technology air superiority aircraft, the Committee believes that the
achievement of air dominance in the information age is more than
one-on-one dogfights. Eight years ago, during Operation Desert Storm,
200 Iraqi aircraft were destroyed or captured on the ground whereas only
35 were destroyed in air-to-air combat. Since then, the U.S. has
immensely improved its ability to achieve battlefield information
dominance and to prosecute ground targets with precision guided weapons.
The U.S. ability to damage runways, destroy aircraft fuel and repair
infrastructure, and disrupt enemy command and control is improving
markedly with the continued introduction of precision stand-off weapons
into the bomber and tactical fighter inventory. This will severely limit
any adversary's ability to get fighters airborne to mount serious
challenges to U.S. fighters.
Should enemy fighters get airborne, absent a complete change in U.S.
training and readiness priorities, they will likely confront a U.S.
force possessing large numbers of highly maintained advanced fighters
operated by better trained pilots with superior situational awareness.
Despite current inventory problems (due largely to limited numbers of
the total number of specialized platforms), there is no question the
United States enjoys tremendous advantages in surveillance (AWACS,
JSTARS), jamming (EA 6B, EC 130), command, control and communications,
intelligence (RC 135s, EP 3s, UAVs, satellites), tactics, training,
maintenance, and long-range precision weapons. It is vitally important
that sufficient resources be invested in these systems as
well--something the Committee believes is not being done.
MAJOR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Air Force Program Reprioritization
As outlined earlier in this report, the Air Force is currently facing
critical problems in terms of personnel, overall readiness, and funding
for many essential warfighting needs, including many that give U.S.
forces significant operational advantages over any adversary. The
Committee believes the case for addressing these shortfalls as soon as
possible is compelling. At the same time, the Committee is not convinced
that the F 22 program as currently constituted can continue as planned,
especially considering the other difficulties confronting the Air Force
and the DoD generally.
Therefore, the Committee believes that unless and until the Air Force
and the Department of Defense can clearly demonstrate how they intend to
meet these competing demands, continued F 22 production is not justified
at this time. The Committee thus recommends an F 22 ``production pause''
until these issues can be resolved. To implement this recommendation,
the Committee specifically denies the $1.8 billion F 22 production
funding requested for fiscal year 2000. The Secretary of the Air Force
is further directed to take all necessary actions to cease production of
aircraft funded in fiscal year 1999 and use all available procurement
funds provided in that year to finance activities needed to ensure an
orderly pause in the production program.
The Committee does approve the budgeted amount of $1.2 billion for F
22 development. These funds are provided in expectation that they will
be used to complete the buy of nine F 22 development aircraft previously
purchased. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to use
these funds to take all necessary actions to restructure the ongoing F
22 development program into an affordable demonstration program tailored
to reduce the risk of the Joint Strike Fighter. The Committee's
expectation is that nine F 22 test aircraft currently funded will be
more than sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this tailored
demonstration program. The Committee therefore directs that none of the
funds provided for the F 22 can be used to acquire more than nine flying
test aircraft without written prior notification to the congressional
defense committees. The Committee further reminds the Air Force that
section 8090 of the Committee bill prohibits the use of research and
development funding for procurement of aircraft for operational use.
Regarding other major Air Force issues, the Committee recommands
significant increases over the budget request for a variety of programs
such as: Air Force personnel recruiting and retention incentives
(including $300 million over the budget for the aviation continuation
pay program, targeted at retaining mid-grade pilots); spare parts and
war reserve shortages; quality of life upgrades at Air Force facilities;
and weapons modernization enhancements. The latter includes additions
over the budget request for new production F 15 and F 16 fighters, and
upgrades for these aircraft. The Committee also has provided funds over
the budget request for bomber modernization, to accelerate upgrades to
the existing inventory of B 52, B 1 and B 2 bombers, and has also
increased funding for precision guided weapons. The Committee also
proposes adding funding for a variety of Air Force reconnaissance assets
including one additional Joint STARS aircraft, additional Predator
unmanned aerial vehicles, and upgrades to existing RC 135 RIVET JOINT
and U 2 surveillance platforms. The Committee also provides sizable
increases in funding for the KC 135 tanker and RIVET JOINT engine
upgrade programs. Finally, the Committee also adds $100 million to the
Joint Strike Fighter program for risk reduction efforts. Additional
details on these and other Air Force program adjustments can be found
elsewhere in this report.
Ensuring ``Lessons Learned'' Are Incorporated Into FY 2001 2006 Defense
Planning
The Committee commends the Secretary of Defense for his establishment
of an ``After-Action Review Board'' to assess Operation Allied Force,
jointly chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs, with representation from the services and the Joint
Staff. The Committee expects that this group will examine issues
associated with the actual conduct of Operation Allied Force, which as
the first offensive military operation in NATO's history clearly
evidenced the various problems, be they political, strategic, or
tactical, associated with coalition warfare on this scale.
However, the Committee also believes that this group, which is
meeting while the Department is also developing its detailed fiscal year
2001 2006 defense plan, must also seek to address the force structure,
organizational, and resource allocation cited earlier in this report.
The Committee, therefore, recommends a new general provision (Section
8129), which following after the lead of a similar
congressionally-mandated review following the Persian Gulf War, is
intended to build on the Secretary's initiative by directing that he
formally assess the conduct of Operation Allied Force, as well as that
of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. The Committee believes it
imperative the Secretary use these reviews to determine deficiencies in
existing U.S. capabilities; report on his findings to both the President
and Congress; and to the degree possible, incorporate these findings
into the defense planning guidance and the fiscal year 2001 budget
submission. Under this section, the Secretary is to report his initial
findings to the President and the Congress not later than October 15,
1999, and will submit his final report with the submission of the fiscal
year 2001 budget request.
Ensuring Appropriations Process Integrity
The Committee recommends a number of initiatives to ensure that
appropriated funds will not be diverted to programs without the required
congressional notification or approval. To address the agency problems
cited earlier in this report, the Committee recommends several
adjustments to Section 8005 of the Committee bill, which provides the
Secretary of Defense with the authority to transfer funds and propose
reprogramming of funds. In the instance of problems encountered with
specific acquisition programs, the Committee has also proposed several
general provisions which realign and limit certain funding, as well as a
number of appropriations adjustments described elsewhere in this report.
Multiyear Procurement
The Defense Department proposed a number of new multiyear procurement
initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 budget. As described earlier in this
report, the Committee is concerned that defense acquisition budgets will
not materialize as forecast. As a result, the Committee believes it
unwise to commit at this stage to any additional new multiyear
procurements. If such contracts are initiated and subsequently broken
for lack of funds, there would be severe cost penalties and program
disruption. On the other hand, those programs not subject to multiyear
contracts could suffer disproportionate reductions as an even larger
share of defense procurement funding could be locked into long-term
contracts.
The Committee, therefore, recommends that no funds or authority be
provided to initiate new multiyear contracts in fiscal year 2000.
Section 8008 of the Committee bill, which in past years has provided
multiyear contracting authority, has been modified to prohibit new
multiyear contracts. This action has no effect on on-gong multiyear
contracts begun in prior years with prior appropriations, except in
those instances where authority is sought to expand such contracts
beyond their original timeframes.
Addressing High Priority Shortfalls
The Committee bill recommends additions to the budget request of over
$3.6 billion to address unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the military
Service Chiefs in personnel, acquisition and readiness-related programs.
In total, the Committee recommends additions to the budget request that
encompass nearly 44 percent of the noncontingency operation-related
unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the military Service Chiefs. The
Committee has also recommended increases over the budget request and
fiscal year 1999 enacted levels for intelligence programs. Specific
details are cited throughout the report and the classified annex.
Ensuring a Quality Ready Force
Personnel Issues. --The Committee fully funded the 4.4 percent
military pay raise in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations bill (Public Law 106 31). The Committee recommends an
additional $165,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to increase the pay raise to
4.8 percent. The Committee has fully funded and in some cases adds funds
over the budget request for other pay compensation and bonus programs.
Military Medical Programs. --The Committee recommends fully funding
the Defense Health Program and has provided a net increase of over
$480,000,000 above the budget request for a variety of health care
efforts.
Training/OPTEMPO. --For the Active duty forces, the Committee has
added $112,100,000 to fund various shortfalls at the rotational training
centers and $55,600,000 for operating tempo deficiencies in both the
active and Guard and Reserve components identified by the Service
Chiefs.
Spare Parts/War Reserve Material Shortfalls. --The Committee has
added $453,000,000 to fund shortfalls in the active and Reserve
components' stocks of spare and repair parts, to maintain near-term
readiness and ensure sustainability of U.S. forces.
Equipment Repair/Maintenance. --The Committee has added $297,900,000
for depot level maintenance of active and Reserve component weapons
systems and support equipment.
Real Property Maintenance. --The Committee has added a total of
$854,000,000 for real property maintenance, targeted at quality-of-life
related needs at defense installations.
Force Protection. --The Committee has added $41,400,000 for force
protection initiatives identified by the military services as unfunded
priorities. In addition, the Committee recommends that five percent of
the additional $400,000,000 provided to the active components for base
operations support be directed toward installation security and force
protection costs.
Soldier Support Equipment. --The Committee has added $88,000,000 to
fund purchases of additional soldier support equipment such as cold
weather clothing, body armor and initial issue equipment for both the
active and Reserve components.
Modernization Programs
The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes an increase of
$4,440,977,000 over fiscal year 1999 levels for modernization programs.
While this increase is welcomed by the Committee, persistent shortfalls
still exist. The Committee has included many recommendations throughout
this bill which address these shortfalls identified from the testimony
of Defense Department witnesses as well as shortfall lists provided to
the Committee by the Department. In total, the bill recommends a net
increase to the budget request of over $1,179,859,000 for procurement
programs.
The most significant recommendations include:
Missile Defense. --The Committee recommends total funding of
$3,899,543,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. This total
includes $761,555,000 for national missile defense and $1,116,432,000
for theater systems. The Committee has provided $527,871,000 for the
Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) program, a reduction of
$83,755,000 to the budget request due to the delay in entering the
engineering and manufacturing development phase. A total of $419,768,000
in new appropriations is proposed for the Navy Theater-Wide (Upper Tier)
program, an increase of $90,000,000 above the budget request.
Major Weapon Programs. --The Committee recommends fully funding the
budget request for the Army's Crusader next generation artillery system,
the Navy's AV 8B and F/A 18 E/F aircraft, the carrier replacement
program, and DDG 51 and LPD 17 ships. The Committee has also funded the
number of C 17 aircraft requested by the Air Force.
The Committee has added funds over the budget request to procure
additional aircraft such as UH 60 Blackhawk helicopters for the Army,
JPATS trainer aircraft for the Navy and Air Force, V 22 and KC 130Js for
the Marine Corps, and F 15, F 16 and JSTARS aircraft for the Air Force.
The Committee has also added funds over the request for Apache
modifications, Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base sustainment, KC
135 tanker re-engining, continued upgrades to the B 2 bomber fleet and
additional AMRAAM missiles.
Mission Essential Shortfalls.-- The Committee has included
additional funding for less glamorous, yet mission essential items which
are critical for the capabilities of deployed troops. The Committee
recommends increases over the budget request for such items as: tactical
radios ($40,000,000), afloat protection systems ($24,400,000),
enhancements to the EA 6B electronic warfare aircraft fleet
($111,000,000), ammunition for all services ($202,954,000),
communication and electronics infrastructure equipment ($135,200,000)
and tracked vehicle modification kits ($60,500,000).
Guard and Reserve Components. --The Committee continues its support
of the Guard and Reserve in the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations
Bill with recommended increases of approximately $616,000,000 over the
budget request for selected personnel and operation and maintenance
programs. With respect to modernization programs, the Committee has
provided $2,485,300,000 in accounts throughout the bill for procurement
of National Guard and Reserve Equipment. This is an increase of
$796,400,000 above the budget request for aircraft, tactical vehicles,
miscellaneous equipment and upgrades to miscellaneous equipment for the
guard and reserve components of the total force.
Reforms/Program Reductions
The following table shows selected programs in the budget request
which the Committee has eliminated or reduced funding based on their
having a relatively low priority, program duplication, unaffordability,
or where the requested funding is excessive due to fact-of-life changes
or when compared to previously enacted levels.
Program
Reduction
22 Production Pause -$1,852,075,000
Revised Fiscal Year 1999 Inflation Estimates -452,100,000
Chemical Demilitarization Program -388,000,000
Military end-strength underexecution -212,300,000
Headquarters and Administrative Expenses -179,000,000
Discoverer II -108,481,000
Javelin Missile -98,000,000
THAAD -83,755,000
T 38 Upgrade -77,000,000
JSOW -68,000,000
GPS Satellites -67,498,000
SADARM Procurement -54,546,000
Standard Missile - 43,600,000
Maneuver Control System -42,049,000
SHF Terminals -31,950,000
Tactical Reconnaissance
During Operation Allied Force and the subsequent deployment of NATO
peace keeping troops in the Balkans region, the Committee believes the
Department of Defense learned at least two important lessons with
respect to tactical reconnaissance: it is extremely valuable and there
are not enough assets. It was clear to many of the commanders that the
RIVET JOINT and unmanned aerial vehicle assets became the best ``eyes
and ears'' tactical intelligence monitoring available in theater. The
problem is that there are a limited number of these assets and staffing
is extremely lean.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles proved their worth during Operation Allied
Force. The vehicles could fly at altitudes and in areas that could not
and should not be attempted by manned aircraft. The vehicles were
vulnerable to enemy fire but managed to provide valuable intelligence
that was used to target future strikes and monitor troop movements.
The RIVET JOINT, U 2 and special Navy manned reconnaissance aircraft
were also effective during Operation Allied Force. These aircraft were a
lucrative source of intelligence and logged in excess of 700 sorties
over Kosovo and surrounding areas. Due to their effectiveness, these
assets were popular with local commanders. However, the numbers of these
aircraft are incredibly limited which puts tremendous pressure on
aircrews.
Despite the obvious benefits of these reconnaissance assets and the
fact that they are major providers of intelligence for force protection,
target acquisition, troop movements, and battle damage assessment, the
Department's fiscal year 2000 budget does not include adequate funding
for its tactical reconnaissance requirements. Therefore, the Committee
has included a total of $270,100,000 above the budget request to fund a
variety of upgrades for tactical reconnaissance assets.
The following is a list of the additional major items for which
funding is provided by the Committee:
Amount
Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle +$20,000,000
Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle +25,000,000
RIVET JOINT +102,200,000
U 2 +36,000,000
Joint SIGINT Avionics Family +17,400,000
The Committee believes that these funds will provide significant
tactical reconnaissance capability for future operations. The Department
should ensure that the benefits from these increases are not
shortchanged in future budget requests and that needed enhancements and
aircraft replacements are fully funded.
Information Assurance
The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is
vulnerable to unauthorized entries into its information infrastructure
that could endanger U.S. troops or compromise U.S. security. There have
been many instances in the past few years in which individuals outside
of the Department of Defense have gained unauthorized access to the
Defense Information Infrastructure. This is a serious threat to the
protection of vital data. The DoD must have confidence that unauthorized
persons have not altered critical information.
Therefore, throughout this report, the Committee recommends increases
of over $500,000,000 to the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request,
for critical technology developments and system upgrades that will
provide information superiority and information assurance. As a part of
this overall funding level, the Committee recommends providing an
additional $150,000,000 for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to use in
support of these efforts in section 8114 of the Committee bill. These
funds are available for transfer by the Deputy Secretary to those
agencies and organizations that require additional funds for specific
projects, programs and activities that support information assurance and
computer security. The Committee anticipates these funds will only be
used as part of an overall Department of Defense Information Assurance
Plan and not simply divided proportionately among the Services.
The Committee therefore has included language which prohibits the
transfer of any portion of the additional $150,000,000 until the Deputy
Secretary has submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a proposed funding allocation and plan, with specific
goals, targeted at meeting DoD's needs in information superiority and
information assurance.
Preparedness Against WMD Terrorist Attacks
Section 8113 of the Committee bill provides an additional $50,000,000
above the budget request to enhance efforts underway within the
Department to develop a domestic emergency response capability against
potential terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction. These
funds are to be allocated as follows:
RAID Team Training/Equipment.-- To complete the training and
outfitting of Rapid Assessment Initial Detection (RAID) teams funded in
FY 1999 and in this bill, including procurement of unified command
suites and mobile analytical laboratory systems.
Appropriation
Amount
National Guard Personnel, Army $4,240,000
National Guard Personnel, Air Force 1,060,000
Operation and Maintenance, Army 10,930,000
Other Procurement, Army 12,180,000
Military Support Detachment RAID (Light) Team. --To provide the
training and preliminary equipment issue to field an initial operating
capability for one traditional drilling Military Support Detachment RAID
(Light) team.
Amount
National Guard Personnel, Army $70,000
National Guard Personnel, Air Force 20,000
Operation and Maintenance, Army 1,180,000
Additional Training/Exercises/Coordination Activities.-- To enhance
the training, organization, and support of DOD forces to prepare for and
respond to WMD terrorism, and to enhance interoperability and
connectivity between local, state, and federal interagency WMD response
forces.
Amount
Reserve Personnel, Army $2,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard 12,320,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 6,000,000
Of the funds provided for Operation and Maintenance, Army National
Guard, the bill provides: $3,000,000 only to establish a cost effective
counter terrorism training program at the Memorial Tunnel facility which
has been outfitted by the Federal Highway Administration to study the
effects of fire and smoke mitigation in enclosed spaces; $2,000,000 to
develop a structured undergraduate research program to address the
shortage of laboratory personnel skilled in the study of organisms and
chemicals necessary to defend against biological and chemical weapons;
$3,500,000 to enhance the Army National Guard's distance learning
capabilities by implementing and expanding the Virtual Readiness
University concept, enhancing the security of the Guardnet 21 backbone,
and other related initiatives.
The Committee believes the National Guard's Distance Learning Network
provides a ready-made and cost-effective infrastructure to deliver WMD
training courses across the country to local, state, and federal WMD
response forces. The Committee recommends that the National Guard Bureau
and the Department of Justice establish a collaborative training program
to make expanded use of the National Guard Distance Learning Network,
and other training and education resources of the National Guard and
Department of Justice, to train civilian and military personnel.
Of the funds provided for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Army, the bill provides $3,000,000 (PE 273610A) to continue consequence
management and related training activities through the National
Terrorism Preparedness Institute at the Southeastern Public Safety
Institute. In addition, funds are provided to study the mass
psychological trauma and impact of a WMD terrorism attack on civilians
and on the military, and to identify appropriate response strategies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY
ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL
The Committee recommends a total of $62,132,237,000 for active
military personnel, a reduction of $1,526,243,000 below the budget
request. The Committee has reduced the active and reserve military
personnel accounts by $1,838,426,000 to reflect action taken in the
Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
106 31) which provided advance funding for the fiscal year 2000 pay and
retirement reform initiatives proposed by the President. The Committee
also includes additional funds to pay for the cost of the pay raise
increase from 4.4 percent to 4.8 percent, as proposed in the
House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee agrees with the
authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget, and has
included funds to provide for additional personnel costs for the Navy
and Marine Corps.
Guard and Reserve
The Committee recommends a total of $9,899,740,000, a decrease of
$165,073,000 below the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel.
The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in
the President's budget for Selected Reserve, and has included funds to
provide for additional personnel costs for the Air Force Reserve, and
Air National Guard. The Committee has also included funds for the
proposed pay raise to 4.8 percent.
Operation and Maintenance
The Operation and maintenance appropriation provides for the
readiness of U.S. Forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and
equipment, the infrastructure that supports the combat forces and the
quality of life service members and their families.
The Committee recommends $93,686,750,000, a net increase of
$2,418,501,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget request. This increase
in driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls in funding for
rotational training centers, spare and repair part stocks, depot-level
maintenance, support equipment, and the infrastructure of U.S. military
bases. The Committee also recommends reductions from the budget request
as the result of fact of life changes and management actions the
Department should undertake to streamline activities.
Procurement
The Committee recommends $53,031,397,000 in obligational authority
for programs funded in Title III of the bill, Procurement, a net
increase of $1,179,859,000 over the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Major programs funded in the bill include the following:
$207,140,000 for 19 UH 60 Blackhawk helicopters.
$774,536,000 for Apache Longbow modifications.
$296,472,000 for 2200 Hellfire missiles.
$307,677,000 for 2682 Javelin anti-tank missiles.
$138,134,000 for 47 MLRS launcher systems.
$392,762,000 for Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base sustainment.
$422,996,000 for the Abrams Tank upgrade program.
$260,444,000 for 12 AV 8B strike aircraft.
$2,691,989,000 for 36 F/A 18E/F fighter aircraft.
$856,392,000 for 11 V 22 aircraft.
$284,493,000 for 17 CH 60S helicopters.
$325,476,000 for 15 T 45 Trainer aircraft.
$576,257,000 for 8 KC 130J airlift aircraft.
$361,202,000 for P 3 aircraft modifications.
$437,488,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.
$155,267,000 for 91 Standard missiles.
$751,540,000 for the aircraft carrier replacement program.
$748,497,000 for the New Attack Submarine.
$2,681,653,000 for 3 DDG 51 Destroyers.
$1,508,338,000 for 2 LPD 17 ships.
$439,966,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship.
$440,000,000 for 8 F 15 aircraft.
$350,610,000 for 15 F 16 aircraft.
$2,671,047,000 for 15 C 17 aircraft.
$468,465,000 for 2 JSTARS aircraft.
$321,818,000 for F 15 modifications.
$295,536,000 for F 16 modifications.
$552,988,000 for C 135 modifications.
$190,279,000 for AMRAAM missiles.
$300,898,000 for 32 Patriot PAC 3 missiles.
$2,044,331,000 for ammunition for all services.
research, development, test and evaluation
The Committee recommends $37,169,446,000 for Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation. Major programs funded in the bill include:
$282,937,000 for the Crusader artillery system.
$427,069,000 for the Comanche helicopter.
$190,931,000 for cooperative engagement capability.
$251,456,000 for new submarine design.
$111,580,000 for ship self defense.
$308,634,000 for the Airborne Laser program.
$576,612,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter.
$1,222,232,000 for F 22 development.
$344,165,000 for B 2 development.
$322,803,000 for the evolved expendable launch vehicle program.
$527,871,000 for Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).
$419,768,000 for Navy Theater Wide Missile Defense.
$761,555,000 for National Missile Defense.
FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
The fiscal year 2000 budget is designed to support active Army forces
of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve forces of 8
divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades
(6 enhanced brigades will be aligned under 2 AC/ARNG integrated division
headquarters). These forces provide the minimum force necessary to meet
enduring defense needs and execute the National Military Strategy.
A summary of the major active forces follows:
Fiscal year--
1998 1999 2000
Divisions: 1 1 1
------- ------- ------
Total 10 10 10
======= ======= ======
Non-division Combat units: 3 3 3
------- ------- ------
Total 3 3 4
======= ======= ======
Active duty military personnel, end strength (thousands) 495 480 480
\1\Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The fiscal year 2000 budget supports battle forces totaling 316 ships
at the end of fiscal year 2000, a decrease of 1 ship from fiscal year
1999. Forces in fiscal year 2000 include 18 strategic submarines, 11
aircraft carriers, 245 other battle force ships, 1,852 Navy/Marine Corps
tactical/ASW aircraft, 645 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 454 Fleet
Air Training aircraft, 238 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 442 Reserve
aircraft, and 450 aircraft in the pipeline.
A summary of the major forces follows:
Fiscal year--
1998 1999 2000
Strategic Forces 18 18 18
----------- ----------- ---------
SLBM Launchers 432 432 432
General Purpose 271 256 256
----------- ----------- ---------
Support Forces 25 25 25
----------- ----------- ---------
Mobilization Category A 18 18 16
----------- ----------- ---------
=========== =========== =========
Total Ships, Battle Force 333 317 316
Total Local Defense/Misc Forces 162 161 167
Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces 139 138 143
Surface Combatant Ships 2 1 0
Coastal Defense 13 12 13
Mobilization Category B 6 8 10
Surface Combatants 0 0 0
Mine Warfare Ships 8 10 11
Support Ships 0 0 0
Naval Aircraft: 4,204 4,128 4,168
----------- ----------- ---------
Naval Personnel: 560,036 544,896 543,929
Reserve: 94,294 90,843 90,288
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The fiscal year 2000 Air Force budget is designed to support a total
active inventory force structure of 49 fighter and attack squadrons, 6
Air National Guard air defense interceptor squadrons and 8 bomber
squadrons, including B 2s, B 52s, and B 1s. The Minuteman and
Peacekeeper ICBM forces will consist of 700 active launchers.
A summary of the major forces follows:
1998 1999 2000
USAF fighter and attack (Active) 51 51 49
USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC 36 35 35
Air defense interceptor (ANG) 10 6 6
Strategic bomber (Active) 8 9 8
Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC) 3 3 3
ICBM launchers/silos 700 700 700
ICBM missile boosters 580 580 550
======== ======== =======
USAF airlift squadrons (Active): 13 13 11
-------- -------- -------
Total Airlift 22 22 20
======== ======== =======
Total Active Inventory 6,242 6,207 6,187
FY 1998 (Actual) FY 1999 Col FY 00 PB FY 2000
Active Duty 367,470 365,882 360,877
Reserve Component 180,066 181,233 180,386
Air National Guard 108,096 106,991 106,678
Air Force Reserve 71,970 74,242 73,708
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request has made military
personnel its first priority to improve retention and recruiting through
a more equitable compensation package. The budget request proposed
increasing the military personnel accounts by over $3,100,000,000 from
the fiscal year 1999 enacted levels, and by more than $36,000,000,000
over the Five Year Defense Plan. These personnel initiatives include
enhanced pay raises, reform of the basic pay tables, legislation to
repeal the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, new legislative
initiatives designed to improve recruiting and retention in specific
skill areas or critical military skills, and increased funding for
enlistment bonuses and education benefits to help the Services' meet
their accession goals.
The Committee, in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106 31), provided $1,838,426,000 in
advance funds to support the President's fiscal year 2000 request for a
4.4 percent pay raise, pay table reform and retirement reform. In
addition to the funds provided in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental, the
Committee recommends including $164,510,000 for an increase of 0.4
percent in the military's pay raise to 4.8 percent, as proposed by the
House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee also includes
$367,200,000 for increases to enlistment, reenlistment and aviation
bonuses to improve recruiting and retention in the Department,
$103,800,000 for recruiting, advertising and recruiter support programs,
and $225,000,000 for the acceleration of the Basic Allowance for Housing
reform.
SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
Fiscal year 1999 $70,607,566,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 73,723,293,000
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation 72,011,977,000
Change from budget request -1,711,316,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $72,011,977,000 for the
Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of
$1,404,411,000 above the $70,607,566,000 appropriated in fiscal year
1999. These military personnel budget total comparisons include
appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard accounts. The
following tables include a summary of the recommendations by
appropriation account. Explanations of changes from the budget request
appear later in this section.
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION
[In thousands of dollars]
Account Budget Recommendation Change from budget
Military Personnel: $22,006,632 $21,475,732 -$530,900
-------------- ------------------- ---------------------
Subtotal, Active 63,658,480 62,132,237 -1,526,243
============== =================== =====================
Reserve Personnel: 2,270,964 2,235,055 -35,909
National Guard Personnel: 3,570,639 3,486,427 -84,212
-------------- ------------------- ---------------------
Subtotal, Guard and Reserve 10,064,813 9,879,740 -185,073
============== =================== =====================
Total, Title I 73,723,293 72,011,977 -1,711,316
The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a decrease of 5,631 end
strength for the active forces and a decrease of 11,744 end strength for
the selected reserve over fiscal year 1999 authorized levels.
The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in the
tables below.
OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH
Fiscal year 1999 estimate 1,390,437
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,384,806
Fiscal year 2000 House authorization 1,385,432
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation 1,385,512
Compared with Fiscal year 1999 -4,925
Compared with Fiscal year 2000 budget request +706
OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH
Fiscal year 1999 estimate 877,042
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 865,298
Fiscal year 2000 House authorization 865,298
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation 865,373
Compared with Fiscal year 1999 -11,669
Compared with Fiscal year 2000 budget request +75
FY 1999 estimate Budget request Fiscal year 2000
House authorization Recommendation Change from request
Active Forces (end strength): 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000
-------------------- ------------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
Total, Active Force 1,390,437 1,384,806 1,385,432 1,385,512 +706
==================== ================== ======================= ================== ======================
Guard and Reserve (end strength): 208,000 205,000 205,000 205,000
-------------------- ------------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
Total, Guard and Reserve 877,042 865,298 865,298 865,373 +75
ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT
OVERVIEW
END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommends an understrength reduction of $212,300,000
to the budget request, as a result of a General Accounting Office review
of the 1999 military personnel end strength levels. The General
Accounting office has been examining the costs for military pay and
allowances to determine if the fiscal year 2000 requirements are
correct. They have concluded, based on May 1999 end strength
projections, that the active components will begin fiscal year 2000 with
approximately 12,000 fewer military personnel on-board than budgeted. In
addition, actual data shows active military personnel on-board, by grade
mix, is different than was requested in last year's budget request. This
means the fiscal year 2000 pay and allowances requirements for personnel
are incorrect and the budgets are overstated. The Committee will
continue to monitor the Services end strength levels as more current
data becomes available.
PAY AND RETIREMENT REFORM
The Committee included funds in support of the President's budget
request for a 4.4 percent increase in basic pay, pay table reform, and
the repeal of the 1986 Military Retirement Reform Act in the Fiscal Year
1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106 31), and,
therefore, recommends a reduction of $1,838,426,000 in the active and
reserve military personnel accounts for fiscal year 2000 for these pay
and compensation initiatives.
Subsequent to the Supplemental appropriations bill, however, the
House-passed Defense Authorization bill recommended language to enhance
the percentage pay raise for military personnel, effective January 1,
2000, and revised the budget's legislative proposal concerning the
proposed repeal of the Redux retirement system. The Committee recommends
an additional $164,510,000 to cover the cost of the increased pay raise,
and recommends a reduction of $392,000,000 to the military personnel
accounts for modifications to the Redux retirement system consistent
with the House-passed authorization bill.
BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING
The Committee recommends an increase over the request of $225,000,000
for the reform of the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program. In
1998, the services began phasing in the Basic Allowance for Housing
program, which will replace two separate allowances, the Variable
Housing Allowance and Basic Allowance for Quarters. The transition from
the old housing allowance system to the new Basic Allowance for Housing
was to be phased in over six years and was required to be cost neutral.
The intent of BAH is to provide service members compensation that is
based on comparable civilian costs of housing, and reduce their
out-of-pocket housing expenses. The Committee recommends the additional
funds to complete the transition phase of BAH reform, as recommended by
the House-passed Defense Authorization bill, in order to protect service
members from any further erosion of their housing benefits.
AVIATION CONTINUATION PAY
The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000,000 over the budget
request to provide additional funds for the pilot Aviation Continuation
Pay (ACP) bonus. The Committee is concerned about the high personnel
tempo and operations tempo that aviation officers and enlisted crew
members are undergoing, and understands that the Air Force is
experiencing major retention problems in these career fields, as well as
other critical skill areas. Prior to 1995, one in 14 pilots separated
after 14 years of service. Today, one in four pilots separate prior to
retirement. In addition, the Air Force is currently operating with
approximately 1,100 less pilots, or at 92 percent of their manning
requirements, and have projected over 1,600 pilot shortages by fiscal
year 2003. The Committee believes that an increase in this bonus will
allow the Air Force to implement an ACP program which offers bonuses to
those eligible pilots who would otherwise separate from the military.
The Committee also supports the budget request which establishes a new
Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay, designed to reverse declining
retention of enlisted crew members.
UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of
$592,200,000 for additional active duty and reserve component pays and
allowances to enhance recruiting, retention and quality of life
initiatives for military personnel, as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Enlistment Bonuses $39,200
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 28,000
Aviation Continuation Pay 300,000
Basic Allowance for Housing 225,000
----------
Total 592,200
JROTC LEADERSHIP TRAINING
The Committee recommends an increase of $34,800,000 over the budget
request in the services' personnel and operations and maintenance
accounts to expand the number of JROTC programs during fiscal year 2000.
The Committee is impressed with the proposal of the George C.
Marshall Foundation to develop, deliver, and evaluate a school-based
community service program to develop ethical leadership and
problem-solving abilities of JROTC students. The Committee commends this
proposal to the Department for consideration.
QUALITY OF LIFE STUDY
The Committee is encouraged by the Department's decision to proceed
with a service-wide quality of life survey similar to the model
developed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and reported in GAO
Report NSIAD 99 197. The Committee expects that the Department's survey
will take into account the factors GAO identified as having negative
effects on unit morale and readiness, such as the availability of parts
and equipment to perform daily job functions, the frequency of
deployments, and other factors related to the work environment. In
addition, the Committee supports a limited annual quality of life survey
with consistent questions to develop longitudinal data on this issue.
The Department may also consider the use of focus groups and the
involvement of impartial entities to provide independent review and
analysis. A report on the findings of the survey shall be submitted to
the Committee by February 1, 2000.
GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES
The Committee recognizes that Guard and Reserve Forces are an
essential part of the total force having played an important role in
recent peacetime operations such as assistance to South American
countries after Hurricane Mitch, and their continued work under the
Enhanced New Horizons Exercises, Operations Desert Thunder/Fox in
Southwest Asia, Operations Joint Guard/Forge in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
most recently the conflict in Kosovo. Many of the skills needed for
response to a crisis reside in the Reserve components, guaranteeing the
increased use of Reservists in military operations other than war. The
Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 2000 continues its support of
the Guard and Reserve and recommends an increase of $611,906,000 over
the budget request for the operation and maintenance accounts. In
addition to the $1,688,900,000 requested in the budget, and fully funded
for Guard and Reserve equipment, the Committee has recommended
$796,400,000 throughout the bill for additional aircraft, tactical
vehicles, and various miscellaneous equipment and upgrades to existing
equipment for the Guard and Reserve components. The following table
summarizes the Guard and Reserve funding issues:
[In thousands of dollars]
Operation and Maintenance +$611,900
Modernization +796,400
------------
Total +1,408,306
full-time support strengths
There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and
Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve
(AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel.
Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain and
administer the Reserve components. Civilian (Military) technicians
directly support units, and are very important to help units maintain
readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and Air Force.
Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 90,086 in
fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 budget request is 113,827 end
strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time
support end strengths:
GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS
FY 1999 estimate Budget estimate House authorization Recommendation Change from request
Army Reserve: 12,804 12,804 12,804 12,804
Navy Reserve TAR 15,618 15,010 15,010 15,010
Marine Corps Reserve 2,362 2,272 2,272 2,272
Air Force Reserve: 991 1,078 1,078 1,134 +56
Army National Guard: 21,763 21,807 22,563 21,807
Air National Guard: 10,930 11,091 11,025 11,096 +5
Total: 64,468 64,062 64,752 64,123 +61
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $20,841,687,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 22,006,632,000
Committee recommendation 21,475,732,000
Change from budget request -530,900,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,475,732,000 for
Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$634,045,000 above the $20,841,687,000 appropriated for fiscal year
1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 48 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Army
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlBudget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 25,000
1100 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonus 24,000
xlOther Adjustments:
2755 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -559,533
2770 Personnel Underexecution -15,000
2790 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 49,533
2800 Retirement Reform -127,500
2805 Basic Allowance for Housing 72,600
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $16,570,754,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 17,207,481,000
Committee recommendation 16,737,072,000
Change from budget request -470,409,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,737,072,000 for
Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$166,318,000 above the $16,570,754,000 appropriated for fiscal year
1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 50 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Navy
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlOther Adjustments:
5555 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -436,773
5580 Personnel Underexecution -51,300
5595 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 37,464
5605 Retirement Reform -96,400
5610 Basic Allowance for Housing 71,600
5615 AOE 1 Replenishment Ships 5,000
AOE 1 REPLENISHMENT SHIPS
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of
$5,000,000 in ``Military Personnel, Navy'' to provide additional
manpower costs for the required end strength associated with the
decision not to implement the fiscal year 2000 decommissionings of the
AOE 1 class of ships.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $6,263,387,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 6,544,682,000
Committee recommendation 6,353,622,000
Change from budget request -191,060,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,353,622,000 for
Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of
$90,235,000 above the $6,263,387,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 52 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,
Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlOther Adjustments:
8205 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -177,980
8240 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 15,520
8242 Marine Corps Security Guards 6,600
8250 Retirement Reform -38,700
8255 Basic Allowance for Housing 19,500
8260 Marine Corps Execution Repricing -16,000
MARINE CORPS SECURITY GUARD DETACHMENTS
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of
$6,600,000 in ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', and $4,100,000 in
``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'' to provide additional
personnel and sufficient operational support costs associated with
increasing the number of embassies guarded by Marine Security Guard
Detachments.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $17,211,987,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 17,899,685,000
Committee recommendation 17,565,811,000
Change from budget request -333,874,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,565,811,000 for
Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of
$353,824,000 above the $17,211,987,000 appropriated for fiscal year
1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 54 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Air
Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlOther Adjustments:
11005 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -471,892
11020 Personnel Underexecution -146,000
11040 4.8% Pay Increase 40,518
11070 Retirement Reform -105,800
11080 Basic Allowance for Housing 61,300
11090 Aviation Continuation Pay 300,000
11100 TERA Rephasing -12,000
RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $2,167,052,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,270,964,000
Committee recommendation 2,235,055,000
Change from budget request -35,909,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,235,055,000 for
Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$68,003,000 above the $2,167,052,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 56 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Army
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlBudget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
11750 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 2,200
xlOther Adjustments:
12005 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -40,574
12030 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 4,765
12045 JROTC Program 2,400
12050 Retirement Reform -4,700
RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,426,663,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,446,339,000
Committee recommendation 1,425,210,000
Change from budget request -21,129,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,425,210,000 for
Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $1,453,000
below the $1,426,663,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 58 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Navy
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlBudget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
12600 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 5,000
12600 Administration and Support/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 4,000
xlOther Adjustments:
12855 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -29,833
12895 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 3,004
12899 JROTC Program 1,400
12910 Retirement Reform -4,700
RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $406,616,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 409,189,000
Committee recommendation 403,822,000
Change from budget request -5,367,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $403,822,000 for Reserve
Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is a decrease of $2,794,000
below the $406,616,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 60 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,
Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlOther Adjustments:
13755 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -7,820
13780 JROTC Program 2,600
13790 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 853
13795 Retirement Reform -1,000
RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $852,324,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 881,170,000
Committee recommendation 872,978,000
Change from budget request -8,192,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $872,978,000 for Reserve
Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $20,654,000
above the $852,342,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 62 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Air
Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlOther Adjustments:
14605 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -13,143
14620 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 1,751
14626 JROTC Program 1,900
14630 Retirement Reform -1,000
14635 Transfer of Test Support Mission/AGR's 2,300
TEST SUPPORT MISSION
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of
$2,300,000 in ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'' to provide additional
personnel costs required for the proposed transfer of the Functional
Check Flight mission and two Test Support missions to the Air Force
Reserve Command from the active Air Force.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $3,489,987,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 3,570,639,000
Committee recommendation 3,486,427,000
Change from budget request -84,212,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,486,427,000 for
National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of
$3,560,000 below the $3,489,987,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 64 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard
Personnel, Army are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlBudget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
15200 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 7,000
xlOther Adjustments:
15355 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -70,416
15370 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 7,704
15395 Retirement Reform -8,500
15400 Workyear Reduction/Annual Training -20,000
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD WORKYEAR REQUIREMENTS
The Committee recommends a reduction from the budget request of
$20,000,000 due to a General Accounting Office (GAO) review of the Army
National Guard's military personnel budget request. The GAO reports that
the Guard has overstated the number of average workyears of military
personnel that is budgeted in fiscal year 2000 because of overstated
participation rates for annual training and the variance in costs of the
different pay groups. In addition, the GAO reports that last year the
Army Guard moved approximately $86,000,000 of annual training funds
(budget activity one) to pay for schools and special training costs
(budget activity two) without the Department's knowledge and without
congressional approval. The Committee directs that the Secretary of
Defense report to the Committee, by February 1, 2000, on its efforts to
ensure the Army Guard's accounting procedures for determining annual
training and schools and special training costs are properly coded, and
that the Army Guard follow the Department's financial management
regulations in the future.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,377,109,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,486,512,000
Committee recommendation 1,456,248,000
Change from budget request -30,264,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,456,248,000 for
National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase
of $79,139,000 above the $1,377,109,000 appropriated for fiscal year
1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 66 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard
Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlOther Adjustments:
16105 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -30,462
16130 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 3,398
16140 Retirement Reform -3,700
16145 C 130 Personnel 500
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for Operation and maintenance is
$91,268,249,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of
$7,225,435,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The
request also includes a $150,000,000 cash transfer from the National
Defense Stockpile Transaction fund.
The accompanying bill recommends $93,686,750,000 for fiscal year
2000, which is an increase of $2,418,501,000 above the budget request.
In addition, the Committee recommends that $150,000,000 be transferred
from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund, as proposed in the
budget request.
These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining
the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related support
activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel
costs. Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of
equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare parts for weapons
and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors,
including force levels such as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army
and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel strength
and deployments, rates of operational activity, and the quantity and
complexity of equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in
operation.
The table below summarizes the Committee's recommendations.
Offset Folios 69 to 70 Insert here
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW
Despite increases proposed by the administration in the fiscal year
2000 budget request, the Committee notes that there are substantial
unfunded requirements in the Operation and Maintenance accounts that are
critical to maintaining the readiness of U.S. armed forces, enhancing
the sustainability of such forces when they are deployed, and improving
the condition of the supporting infrastructure. As in past years, the
Committee requested that the Military Services identify their top
unfunded priorities for consideration during the Committee's
deliberations on the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense
Appropriations bill. Once again, the Military Services have identified
significant shortfalls in the Operation and Maintenance accounts. In the
Committee's view, these shortfalls pose a serious risk to both the near
term readiness of U.S. forces as well as the ability of these forces to
sustain combat operations. These shortfalls are evident in a number of
areas financed by the Operation and Maintenance accounts including:
funding for the rotational training centers; funding for stocks of spare
and repair parts necessary to ensure that equipment is mission capable
and can be sustained once deployed; depot-level maintenance of weapons
systems and support equipment; and, basic troop support gear such as
cold weather clothing and body armor. These shortfalls are also apparent
in the funding required to maintain the condition of U.S. military bases
which, despite increases in the budget request, is perennially
underfunded. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee recommends
increased funding above the budget request in a number of areas
including those areas of need cited above.
The Committee notes that an additional $2,250,000,000 was provided in
the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public
Law 106 31) for critical, readiness-related shortfalls identified by the
military Services including: spare parts, depot maintenance, readiness
related training and base operations support. These increases, outlined
below, have had a direct impact on certain recommendations made by the
Committee in its deliberations on the fiscal year 2000 Department of
Defense Appropriations bill. For instance, the Committee recommendation
for additional spare parts for the Services is biased toward improving
stocks of war reserve materials because a large percentage of the
Department's immediate needs were met in Public Law 106 31, the
Supplemental Appropriations Act.
The following listing indicates those readiness categories and
funding addressed earlier this year in Public Law 106 31.
Spare Parts Requirements $1,124,900,000
Depot Maintenance 742,500,000
Readiness Training and OPTEMPO 200,200,000
Base Operations Support 182,400,000
The Committee also notes that there are areas in the Operation and
Maintenance accounts where savings can be achieved to free up resources
both for readiness needs, and to make resources available for more
robust modernization programs. Given the need to correct deficiencies in
the Operation and Maintenance accounts in order to enhance near-term
readiness and sustainability as well as weapons modernization, the
Committee believes it is imperative for the Department of Defense to use
its Operation and Maintenance funding as efficiently as possible.
Therefore, the Committee recommends certain reductions based on
fact-of-life considerations, as well as management actions that the
Department should undertake to streamline activities funded in the
Operation and Maintenance accounts.
ROTATIONAL TRAINING INITIATIVES
The Committee recommends an increase of $112,100,000 above the budget
request to address shortages of equipment and parts and to improve the
state of infrastructure at each of the Military Service's rotational
training centers. Consistent with the recommendations of the House Armed
Services Committee in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2000
National Defense Authorization bill, the Committee finds that the
rotational training centers are a key to maintaining the readiness of
U.S. forces, and that the equipment, facilities and ranges at these
centers are in urgent need of upgrades and repairs. To address these
shortfalls, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget
request, to be distributed as follows:
Army $42,100,000
Navy 2,000,000
Marine Corps 25,700,000
Air Force 42,300,000
REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
The Committee recognizes that the Administration, for the first time,
requested funding for the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account.
While the Committee recommends including funding in this account, as
discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee recommends returning
the funds included in the budget request to the Services' Operation and
Maintenance accounts. The Committee notes that a substantial portion of
the funding included in the budget request for Quality of Life
Enhancements, Defense is not related to quality of life enhancing
projects such as dormitories, barracks and related facilities.
Similarly, the Committee notes that the funding proposed in the budget
request was derived primarily by transferring funds which would have
otherwise been included in the Services' Operation and Maintenance
accounts.
Despite the administration's change in approach to real property
maintenance (RPM) funding, the budget materials acknowledge that the
central problem of RPM, a persistent and growing backlog, continues
unabated. The budget estimates indicate that the RPM backlog is at least
$9,600,000,000 and growing. The Committee notes with interest that the
budget materials have not even included an estimate of the backlog of
Army RPM for the past two years. (The last available data indicate that
the backlog for this one service alone was $5,900,000,000.) To improve
the information in the budget request, the Committee directs that the
Department of Defense include estimates of the backlog of real property
maintenance for the Army as well as all other Services and Defense-wide
components in the fiscal year 2001 budget request, and all subsequent
budget requests.
In order to reduce the backlog of real property maintenance
requirements, the Committee recommends an increase totaling $854,000,000
above the budget request. Of this amount, $800,000,000 for the Active
components is provided in the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
account as described elsewhere in this report. Funding over the budget
request for the Guard and Reserve components totals $54,000,000 and is
provided to each component's respective Operation and Maintenance
account. The additional funding over the budget request is distributed
as follows:
Army $182,600,000
Navy 285,200,000
Marine Corps 62,100,000
Air Force 259,600,000
Defense-wide 10,500,000
Army Reserve 10,000,000
Navy Reserve 10,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve 4,000,000
Air Force Reserve 10,000,000
Army National Guard 10,000,000
Air National Guard 10,000,000
BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT
The Committee recommends increases above the budget request totaling
$439,800,000 to meet unfunded requirements associated with base
operations support, broken out by component in the table below. The
Services continue to suffer from significant unfunded priorities in
their base operations support accounts. The Committee recognizes that
unfunded requirements in this area have an indirect yet corrosive effect
on the readiness of U.S. forces, as the Services have and will continue
to shift funding from readiness related activities, such as training and
equipment maintenance, to meet ``must pay'' bills related to base
operations. Due to continuing concerns about installation security and
force protection, the Committee expects the Department of Defense to
allocate not less than 5 percent of the increases over the budget
request for the active military services for base operations support to
programs and costs associated with installation security and force
protection.
Army $154,600,000
Navy 91,200,000
Marine Corps 10,000,000
Air Force 144,200,000
Army Reserve 10,000,000
Navy Reserve 10,000,000
Air Force Reserve 10,000,000
Air National Guard 9,800,000
DEPOT MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommends an increase of $297,900,000 above the budget
request to meet unfunded depot-level equipment maintenance requirements.
The Committee notes that the Department of Defense has an unfunded
backlog of depot-level maintenance of over $1,100,000,000, with an
additional $200,000,000 in unfunded ship maintenance availabilities. As
it has noted in previous years, the Committee observes the fiscal year
2000 budget request once again provides for depot maintenance funding at
significantly less than 100 percent of the Services' requirements. In
order to reduce backlogs, and improve the availability of weapons
systems and related equipment, the Committee recommends increases over
the budget request, to be distributed as outlined below. Further detail
on the distribution of this funding is found in the tables accompanying
the description of each Service's Operation and Maintenance account.
The following list indicates the additions over the budget request.
Army $35,600,000
Navy 125,100,000
Marine Corps 20,000,000
Air Force 68,800,000
Army Reserve 3,400,000
Air Force Reserve 15,000,000
Army National Guard 10,000,000
Air National Guard 20,000,000
SPARES AND WAR RESERVE MATERIEL
The Committee recommends an increase of $453,000,000 above the budget
request to meet unfunded requirements for the acquisition of spare and
repair parts for both peacetime operations as well as war reserve
requirements. The Services have significant unfunded requirements as
regards to the acquisition of critical inventory, including unit
readiness spares and war reserve sustainment spares for the Army;
aviation spares for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Air National
Guard; readiness spares kits and bare base kits for the Air Force; war
reserve material procured by the Defense Logistics Agency; and various
peacetime operating stocks in support of Marine Corps Reserve and Air
National Guard requirements. The availability of this material has a
direct bearing on the Services' ability to prosecute the two MRC
scenario postulated in the National Security Strategy.
To address these shortfalls, the Committee recommends increases over
the budget request as outlined below. In addition, the Committee directs
that the Secretary of Defense provide a report to the congressional
defense committees not later than January 31, 2000, which delineates the
amounts that the each Service plans to spend on peacetime operating
stocks and war reserve materials. The Committee further directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than February 28, 2000, that identifies the
components of both the peacetime operating stocks and war reserve
materials that will be allocated to improve the readiness of Apache
helicopters.
The following list indicates the additions over the budget request.
Army $213,500,000
Navy 85,000,000
Marine Corps 25,000,000
Air Force 115,000,000
Defense-wide 3,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve 1,500,000
Air National Guard 10,000,000
FORCE PROTECTION INITIATIVES
The Committee recommends an increase of $41,400,000 above the budget
request for force protection to meet unfunded priorities identified by
the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
This increased funding is distributed as outlined below. In addition to
these amounts, as described elsewhere in this report the Committee has
directed that not less than 5 percent of the additional funding provided
above the budget request for base operations support for the active duty
military services be directed toward enhanced facilities security and
force protection requirements.
Navy $36,400,000
Air Force 5,000,000
SOLDIER SUPPORT INITIATIVES
The Committee recommends an increase of $88,000,000 above the budget
request in several Operation and Maintenance accounts for additional
soldier support equipment. The Committee notes that there continues to
be a substantial backlog of this type of equipment, which is essential
to sustain troops in the field and enhance combat readiness. Items to be
procured with these extra funds include extended cold weather clothing,
body armor, equipment harnesses and other initial issue gear, and other
personnel support equipment items. The funds added above the budget
request are outlined below:
Army $26,000,000
Marine Corps 35,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve 13,000,000
Army National Guard 14,000,000
OPERATING TEMPO FUNDING
The Committee recommends an increase of $55,600,000 above the budget
request for training operations. Based on unfunded training needs
identified by the Service Chiefs, and the recommendations in the House
report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization
bill, the Committee recommends that this increased funding be
distributed as shown below. In addition, the Committee notes the
additional funds provided for the Air National Guard are for the purpose
of increased flying hours in support of F 16 training activities.
Marine Corps $10,600,000
Army Reserve 20,000,000
Army National Guard 10,000,000
Air National Guard 15,000,000
RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING
The Committee recognizes that the military Services' recruiting
efforts to enlist high quality recruits is continuing to be difficult
and recommends an increase of $103,800,000 over the budget request to
support the Department's efforts in achieving their recruiting
objectives.
The Committee understands the Army is currently developing two new
test accession programs, the GED+ and the College First Program. These
programs while designed to expand recruiting markets to all qualified
applicants, and increase opportunities for youths to serve in the Army,
are also expected to increase minority representation in the military.
Of the funds provided, the Committee has included $33,000,000 for the
Army for recruiting and advertising, which will allow for the
implementation of these two new test programs.
Small Business Advertising
The Committee understands that there are many qualified
minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and small businesses
that design and place advertising and advertising campaigns, which can
assist the Department in its recruiting efforts using print, electronic,
and the radio media. The Committee believes these firms can provide
valuable new insights and expertise to servicewide recruiting programs.
The Committee expects the Department to increase the use of these
qualified businesses in the initiation, design and placement of its
advertising in the print, radio and electronic media.
GUARD AND RESERVE UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS
The Committee recommends an increase of $356,600,000 over the budget
request for additional Guard and Reserve Operation and maintenance
requirements described by the Service's as readiness priorities, as
follows:
Base Operations Support $39,800,000
Real Property Maintenance Backlog 54,000,000
Depot Maintenance 48,400,000
Optempo/Flying Hours 45,000,000
Spares 11,500,000
Recruiting and Recruiter Support 51,500,000
Military (civilian) technicians shortfall 48,000,000
Information Management/Operations 31,400,000
Initial Issue/ECWCS 27,000,000
ARMY TRAINING AREA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends providing $32,000,000 over the budget
request, in Operation and Maintenance, Army, Army Reserve, and Army
National Guard accounts, as outlined in the Army's unfunded requirements
list, to conduct preventive maintenance on training grounds to ensure
continued realistic training and to protect the environment. This
funding is distributed as follows:
Army $24,736,000
Army Reserve 1,000,000
Army National Guard 6,264,000
HEADQUARTERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The Committee recommends a reduction of $179,000,000 below the budget
request for headquarters and administrative activities. Despite past
attempts to streamline the management of DoD activities, the Committee
notes that the budget request once again reflects headquarters
activities which cost in excess of $3,000,000,000 in total and which are
manned by over 40,000 personnel. In addition, the Committee agrees with
the assessment found in the House report accompanying the fiscal year
2000 National Defense Authorization bill that these figures
substantially understate the true funding and manning levels of
headquarters and administrative activities. Accordingly, the Committee
recommends the following reductions from the budget request:
Army -$64,000,000
Navy -35,000,000
Air Force -20,000,000
Defense-wide -60,000,000
CONSULTANTS AND ADVISORY SERVICES
The Committee recommends a reduction of $40,000,000 below the budget
request for consulting and advisory services. Despite numerous unfunded
requirements which contribute directly to the readiness of U.S. forces,
or which represent must pay bills, as noted elsewhere in this report,
the Department continues to request substantial amounts for studies
which do not contribute directly to solving these fundamental problems.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the
budget request:
Army -$10,000,000
Navy -10,000,000
Air Force -10,000,000
Defense-wide -10,000,000
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
The Committee recommends a reduction of $81,150,000 below the budget
request for communications services. The Committee notes that the budget
request includes alarmingly high levels of both price and program
growth. For instance, on prices, the budget request reflects growth of
over 16 percent in some cases, as compared to the general purchase rate
of inflation of 1.5 percent. Therefore, the Committee recommends the
following reductions from the budget request:
Army -$36,000,000
Navy -23,000,000
Marine Corps -150,000
Air Force -22,000,000
SECURITY PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends a decrease of $24,067,000 below the budget
request for security programs of the Department of Defense. The budget
request reflects substantial growth for security programs, notably work
performed by the Defense Security Service and certain arms control
programs. A review performed by the House Appropriations Surveys and
Investigations staff indicates that this growth can be reduced and
effect neither the work of the Defense Security Service, nor U.S. treaty
compliance obligations. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the
following reductions from the budget request:
Army -$9,867,000
Navy -6,900,000
Air Force -7,300,000
DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
The Committee recommends a reduction of $30,000,000 below the budget
request for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. The Committee
notes that, on balance, the budget portrays program growth in the
Services' Operation and Maintenance accounts, and is convinced that DFAS
can further increase the efficiency of its operations. The Committee
therefore recommends this reduction be distributed as follows:
Army -$9,300,000
Navy -9,300,000
Marine Corps -2,000,000
Air Force -9,400,000
ACQUISITION CONTRACTING AND TRAVEL
The Committee recommends a reduction of $17,531,000 from the budget
request for acquisition personnel travel and contracting expenses, to be
distributed as follows:
Army -$3,350,000
Air Force -4,181,000
Defense-Wide -10,000,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXECUTION DATA
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to
provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly budget
execution data. Such data should be provided not later than forty-five
days past the close of each quarter of the fiscal year, and should be
provided for each O 1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity
for each of the active, defense-wide, reserve and National Guard
components. For each O 1 budget activity, activity group and
subactivity, these reports should include: the budget request and actual
obligations; the DoD distribution of unallocated congressional
adjustments to the budget request; all adjustments made by DoD during
the process of rebaselining the O&M accounts; all adjustments resulting
from below threshold reprogrammings; and all adjustments resulting from
prior approval reprogramming requests.
In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of Defense
provide semiannual written notifications to the congressional defense
committees which summarize Operation and Maintenance budget execution to
include the effect of rebaselining procedures, other below threshold
reprogrammings, and prior approval reprogrammings. The Committee further
directs that the Department of Defense provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 days prior to
executing procedures to rebaseline the Operation and Maintenance
accounts.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPROGRAMMINGS
The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds between O 1
budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be subject to normal, prior
approval reprogramming procedures. Items for which funds have been
specifically provided in any appropriation in this report using phrases
``only for'' or ``only to'' are Congressional interest items for the
purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD form 1414). Each of these
items must be carried on the DD form 1414 at the stated amount, or a
revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically
addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing
concerns about force readiness and the diversion of Operation and
maintenance funds, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to
provide written notification to the congressional defense committees for
the cumulative value of any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000
from the following budget activities and subactivity group categories:
Operation and maintenance, Army
Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support forces,
Echelon above corps forces, Land forces operations support; Land Forces
Readiness: Land forces depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Navy
Air Operations: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air
training, Aircraft depot maintenance; Ship Operations: Mission and other
ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Intermediate
maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps
Expeditionary Forces: Operational forces, depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
Air Operations: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons, Air
operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations: Airlift
operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to the transportation business
area; Basic Skills and Advanced Training: Depot maintenance; Logistics
Operations: Depot maintenance.
Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming
procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the following
budget subactivities.
Operation and maintenance, Army
Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Navy
Aircraft depot maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps
Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
Air Operations: Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations: Depot
maintenance; Basic Skills and Advanced Training; Depot maintenance; and
Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance.
A 76 STUDIES
The Committee harbors serious concerns about the current DoD
outsourcing and privatization effort. While the Committee recognizes the
need to reduce DoD infrastructure costs, the cost savings benefits from
the current outsourcing and privatization effort are, at best,
debatable. Despite end-strength savings, there is no clear evidence that
this effort is reducing the cost of support functions within DoD with
high cost contractors simply replacing government employees. In
addition, the current privatization effort appears to have created
serious oversight problems for DoD especially in those cases where DoD
has contracted for financial management and other routine administrative
functions. DoD appears to be moving toward a situation in which
contractors are overseeing and paying one another with little DoD
oversight or supervision. As a result of this developing situation, the
Committee recommends a reduction of $100,000,000 from the budget request
as described in a new general provision, Section 8109. In addition, the
Committee directs that DoD undertake a comprehensive review of A 76
studies as described in a new general provision, Section 8110.
URBAN WARFARE
The Department of Defense has recently placed increased emphasis on
the importance of urban warfare. For example, the Committee is aware
that the Army has recently begun efforts to acquire weapons systems that
would have special application to an urban environment, and has
developed an urban training area within the Joint Readiness Training
Center. Nevertheless, the Committee is persuaded that efforts in this
area must be substantially expanded in order to improve the readiness of
U.S. forces for possible conflicts centered in urban environments.
Consequently, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2000, that
provides the following: an inventory of Department of Defense assets
dedicated to urban warfare and associated training, including equipment
and training areas; a description of the training programs specific to
urban warfare; and an assessment of the readiness of U.S. forces in the
conduct of urban warfare. This report shall also provide an assessment
of shortfalls in equipment, personnel and facilities necessary to
enhance the posture of U.S. forces in this area.
CONTROLLED HUMIDITY PRESERVATION PROGRAM
The Committee believes that the Controlled Humidity Preservation
(CHP) Program will enhance the condition of Department of Defense
equipment such as weapons systems and associated support equipment by
minimizing maintenance requirements associated with moisture-induced
corrosion. Accordingly, the Committee requires that the Secretary of
Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than March 31, 2000, that outlines measures taken by each of the
military Services to expand the application of the CHP Program.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $17,185,623,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 18,610,994,000
Committee recommendation 19,629,019,000
Change from budget request 1,018,025,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,629,019,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$2,443,396,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 83 to 84 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Army are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
250 Soldier Support--Extended Cold Weather Clothing system (ECWCS) 19,000
250 Military Gator 8,000
250 Soldier Support--Field Kitchen Modern Burner Units (MBU) 4,000
250 Soldier Support--Soldier Modernization 3,000
450 Rotational Training--NTC Prepo Fleet Maintenance 28,000
450 Rotational Training--Korea Training Area 4,100
450 Rotational Training--CMTC Mission Support 4,000
450 Rotational Training--FORSCOM Developments to National Training Center 4,000
450 Rotational Training--JRTC Prepo Fleet Maintenance 2,000
550 Training Area Environmental Management 23,984
650 Depot Maintenance/System Sustainment Tech Support 35,600
650 Humanitarian Airlift Aircraft Maintenance 200
750 Transportation Improvements-National Training Center 12,500
750 Ft. Baker Repairs and Maintenance 6,000
750 NTC Airhead 2,000
750 Security Improvements-NTC Heliport 300
850 Headquarters growth -4,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
1650 Air Battle Captain Program 1,250
1850 Improved Moving Target Simulator (IMTS) 3,500
1950 Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies 1,500
2000 University of Mounted Warfare 3,000
2000 Armor Officers Distance Learning 500
2000 Training Area Environmental Management 440
2050 Training Area Environmental Management 312
2200 Recruiting and Advertising 17,500
2400 Junior ROTC 6,000
2450 Recruiting Leases 15,500
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
2650 Security Program (Arms Control, DSS) -9,867
2800 Pulse Technology 5,000
2850 Supercomputing Work 6,500
2850 Logistics and Technology Project 1,100
2850 Power Projection C4 Infrastructure -16,552
3000 Acquisition Travel and Contracts -3,350
3000 Headquarters growth -5,000
3050 Service-wide communication underexecution -20,000
3200 Ft. Atkinson Preservation 250
3200 DFAS Reduction -9,300
3250 Claims Underexecution -43,400
3350 Corps of Engineers Building Demolition 4,650
Undistributed:
3710 Classified Undistributed 2.500
3775 Base Operations Support 154,600
3835 Memorial Events 400
3940 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer From Quality of Life Enhancements) 625,808
3960 Contract and Advisory Services -10,000
4070 Management Headquarters -55,000
4080 Reductions in JCS Exercises -10,000
4085 Spares/War Reserve Material 213,500
4086 Communications Reduction -16,000
CECOM telecommunications upgrades (Ft. Monmouth) (18,600)
LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT
The Committee recognizes the need for substantial improvements in the
Department of Defense logistics system. Accordingly, the Committee
directs that $1,100,000 of the funds provided for Operation and
Maintenance, Army be used only to initiate a Logistics and Technology
project to establish benchmarks based on civilian technologies and to
develop and present educational materials to DoD logistics personnel.
government-owned, contractor-operated (goco) facilities
The Committee remains concerned about the Army's lack of progress in
recovering costs associated with the environmental restoration of GOCO
facilities. The Committee is disappointed with the gaps in the Army's
information collection efforts on 24 GOCO facilities, frustrated with
the continued failure to file claims, and skeptical that the Army's
proposed recovery strategy will produce results. Accordingly, the
Committee includes a provision in Operation and Maintenance, Army which
withholds $4,000,000 of the funds available in the Army Administration
subactivity group until the completion of a 120-day assessment of the
prospects of recovering costs associated with the environmental
restoration at these 24 GOCO facilities.
Consistent with its request in last year's Conference Report, the
Committee further directs that no later than March 30, 2000, the
Secretary of the Army shall submit a report on the results of that
assessment to the congressional defense committee that provides: a
summary of historical third-party insurance coverage for each GOCO
facility; a detailed legal analysis of the potential claims for each of
the GOCO facilities; recommendations as to which insurance carriers to
notify, including the procedure for notifying the carriers;
recommendations for interfacing with past and present GOCO contractors
relative to the pursuit of insurance recovery; recommendations for
responding to insurance carrier inquiries and/or coverage positions; and
recommendations for maximizing the insurance recovery in an efficient
and cost effective manner, including a projected timetable for
completion.
HUMANITARIAN AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
The Committee understand that Department of the Army is in possession
of a C 12 Aircraft which may be deemed surplus. The Committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, this plane
to a non-governmental organization (NGO) which provides humanitarian
airlift primarily to sub-Saharan Africa. Further, the committee includes
$200,000 solely for the purposes of repairing the aircraft prior to
transfer.
NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER HELIPORT SECURITY
The Committee believes that there is not adequate security for the
National Training Center's heliport. To begin addressing this problem,
the Committee provides $300,000 only to begin implementing the planned
security improvements at this facility.
Memorial Events
The Committee has included an additional $400,000 above the budget
request of $1,500,000 only to support memorial events to reflect
increased costs.
GENERAL PURPOSE TENTS
Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for
soldier life support equipment, the Committee directs that $18,000,000
be made available for the purpose of meeting prospective requirements
for modular general purpose tents (M.G.P.T.) associated with wartime and
other mobilizations. The Committee understands that the M.G.P.T. system
developed by the Army provides a more durable and habitable replacement
for the current general purpose tent, and has provided funds to continue
the program under Army management.
ABRAMS INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2000
includes funding of $72,600,000 for the Abrams Integrated Management XXI
Program (AIM XXI), to rebuild early versions of the Abrams tank and to
bring these tanks up to the most recent configuration. The Committee
supports this program, and the funding level proposed in the budget
request.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
Information on the Armor Officer Distance Learning, Supercomputing
Work, and Power Projection C4 Infrastructure programs can be found in
the Information Technology section of this report.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $21,872,399,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 22,188,715,000
Committee recommendation 23,029,584,000
Change from budget request 840,869,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,029,584,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$1,157,185,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 85 to 87 insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
4400 Flying Hours (Marine Aviation Logistics CH 46/7 58) 27,400
4400 UAV Flight Hours 2,000
4450 Contractor Maintenance Support (Marine Corps Aviation) 3,100
4450 Rotational Training--Naval Air Strike Airwarfare Center 2,000
4600 Depot Maintenance--Aircraft and Support Equipment Rework 37,600
4600 Depot Maintenance--EA 6B Depot Support (Marine Corps Aviation) 2,500
4600 Depot Maintenance--EA 6B Pod Repair (Marine Corps Aviation) 1,000
5000 Depot Maintenance--Ship Depot Maintenance 55,000
5400 Joint Warfare Analysis Center 5,000
5500 Unjustified Growth for USACOM -2,000
5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators 500
5950 Depot Maintenance--Aegis Cruiser Upgrade Program 15,000
5950 Depot Maintenance--MK 45 Overhaul 10,000
5950 Depot Maintenance--CWIS Overhaul 4,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
6650 NWS Concord 500
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
7300 Monterey Institute for Counter Proliferation Studies 4,000
7300 Naval Postgraduate School--Facility Maintenance 2,000
7300 Defense Language Institute 1,500
7350 CNET 4,000
7350 Navy Electricity and Electronic Training 4,000
7550 Recruiting and Advertising 5,000
7700 Junior ROTC 3,500
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
8000 DFAS Reduction -9,300
8250 Servicewide Communications -4,000
8600 ATIS 2,500
8600 Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering 2,500
8750 Integrated Combat Systems Test Facility Support 2,000
9000 Security Programs (DSS) -6,900
Undistributed:
9355 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 508,369
9357 Force Protection (Afloat) 24,400
9357 Force Protection (Ashore) 12,000
9360 Classified Programs Undistributed 5,500
9395 Base Operations Support 91,200
9540 Navy Environmental Leadership Program 5,000
9590 Executive Education Demonstration Project 1,000
9600 Spares 85,000
9700 Management Headquarters -35,000
9705 Reduction in JCS Exercises -2,000
9710 Contract and Advisory Services -10,000
9725 Communications Reduction -19,000
OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
Within the funds provided for Operation and Maintenance, Navy, the
Committee directs that $7,500,000 be used only to fund backlogs in
oceanographic research.
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION CONCORD
The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 above the budget
request only to conduct a joint-use study examining the potential for
joint use of the Naval Weapons Station, Concord (CA), by civilian and
military entities that is consistent with the missions of the Navy and
the Army and the needs of the surrounding communities. The study shall
be conducted by the Navy in conjunction with the Army and the cities of
Concord, Martinez, and Pittsburg, Contra Costa County, the communities
of Clyde and Bay Point, and the East Bay Regional Parks District. This
study shall be concluded no later than December 31, 2000.
PORTABLE FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT
The Committee is concerned about the condition and types of equipment
currently used by Navy and Marine Corps initial fire fighting response
teams. The Committee is aware that equipment has recently become
available that can improve the effectiveness of fire fighters while
substantially improving the safety of working conditions for such
personnel. Accordingly, the Committee directs that not less than
$300,000 of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Navy
be used to purchase commercially available portable foam supply vests.
VIEQUES RANGE COMPLEX, PUERTO RICO
The Committee is deeply concerned about the tragic accident which
occurred in April 1999 on the Navy's training range on the Island of
Vieques. The Committee recognizes that the Navy considers this range to
be a critical training asset, necessary to maintain the readiness of the
aviation units of the Navy's Atlantic Fleet. However, because of this
incident and other factors, the Committee directs the Navy to reexamine
this issue, supports the Navy's decision to temporarily suspend all
training at Vieques, and awaits the results of the panel that the
Secretary of Defense has appointed to review this incident. The
Committee believes the Panel must place special emphasis on reviewing
the actual need for the Navy's use of the Vieques range, and should
study the results of the Puerto Rican Special Commission on Vieques. In
addition, the Committee directs the Panel to look at the use of
alternative sites.
NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) LEMOORE
The Committee strongly believes that a key to enhancing retention
rates in the Navy is to improve the quality of life at its key bases and
installations. In particular, the Committee has been told by many Navy
fighter pilots that the deficiency of quality of life facilities,
including recreation facilities, at NAS Lemoore, California is a
significant reason for the retirement of experienced personnel. As the
major new concentration for west coast tactical Naval Aviation, the
excellence of this facility is critical to morale and retention. Because
NAS Lemoore is located in a remote and isolated location, the normal
metrics defining policy for construction of revenue generating
recreational facilities cannot prevail. The Committee encourages the
Department of Defense to find a method such as designation as remote and
funding by appropriated funds, or waiver of the normal parameters for
rates of return to allow for construction of necessary recreation
facilities at NAS Lemoore. The Committee directs DoD to report on this
plan by December 31, 1999.
NAVY ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRONICS TRAINING SERIES
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Technology section of this report.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $2,578,718,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,558,929,000
Committee recommendation 2,822,004,000
Change from budget request 263,075,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,822,004,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an
increase of $243,286,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year
1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 91 insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
10050 Soldier Support--Initial Issue 30,000
10050 Rotational Training--MCAGCC Improvements 25,700
10050 Training and OPTEMPO (III MEF Airlift Requirements) 10,600
10050 Soldier Support--Body Armor 5,000
10050 NBC Defense Equipment 1,100
10100 Corrosion Control 13,800
10100 Fuel Conversion to JP 5/8 1,100
10150 Depot Maintenance 20,000
10350 Care in Storage (WRM Materials) 2,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
11200 Recruiting and Advertising 5,000
11250 Off-Duty and Voluntary Education 3,000
11300 Junior ROTC 2,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
11650 DFAS Reduction -2,000
Undistributed:
11905 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 120,225
11945 Base Operations Support 10,000
12030 Reduction in JCS Exercises -2,400
12070 Marine Corps Security Guards 4,100
12075 Spares/War Reserve Materiel 25,000
12085 Communications Reductions -150
12090 IRV Transfer -11,000
BLOUNT ISLAND
The Committee supports the actions of the Marine Corps to acquire the
Blount Island Command Complex property that is currently under lease.
The Committee expects that this initiative will include acquisition of
all surrounding property impacted by the current explosive safety
quantity distance (ESQD) arc to permanently prevent development that is
incompatible with the loading/offloading of ordnance on Maritime
Prepositioning Ships.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $19,021,045,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 20,313,203,000
Committee recommendation 21,641,099,000
Change from budget request 1,321,896,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,641,099,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase
of $2,619,964,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 93 to 95 insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
12600 Battlelabs--Engineering and Technical Support 4,000
12650 Reverse Osmosis Dersalinators 1,000
12750 Rotational Training--AETC Mission Essential Equipment 14,000
12750 Rotational Training--Utah Test and Training Range Support 11,700
12750 Rotational Training--Funding for Air Warfare Center Range Support 6,100
12750 Rotational Training--AETC Range Improvements 5,900
12750 Rotational Training--Funding for Air Warfare Center Fiber Link 4,600
12775 Depot Maintenance 31,000
12775 Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering 2,500
12800 Communications, Other Contracts -2,000
13100 Power Scene 4,000
13100 SIMVAL 1,261
13350 Launch Facility Enhancements 10,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
13850 Interim Contractor Support (C 17) 396,600
13850 Airlift Operations (C 17 Sustainability) 2,900
13975 Depot Maintenance 5,400
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
14950 Recruiting and Advertising 9,300
15150 Junior ROTC 15,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
15350 REMIS 3,500
15350 Joint Service Ammo Management Automated Info System (JAMSS) 1,935
15650 Acquisition Travel and Contracts -4,181
15700 Servicewide Communications -4,000
15750 Personnel Programs -11,400
15950 DFAS Reduction -9,400
16050 Civil Air Patrol Corporation 7,500
16100 William Lehman Aviation Center 500
16250 Security Programs (DSS) -7,300
Undistributed:
16410 Classified Undistributed -800
16480 Base Operations Support 109,300
16670 Force Protection Infrastructure 5,000
16680 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 400,826
16700 Spares 115,000
16775 Base Operations Support (Real Property Support) 34,900
16795 NBC High Leverage Programs 18,800
16800 C 130J Logistics and Training 6,055
16810 ICBM Prime Contract 16,300
16825 AEF Joint Experimentation (JEFX) 35,600
16835 Management Headquarters -20,000
16840 Reduction in JCS Exercises -10,000
16845 Contract and Advisory Services -10,000
16850 Depot Maintenance--Rivet Joint #15 16/COBRA BALL 3 32,400
16855 Air Force MTAP 4,000
16865 Air Force ICS Transfer 106,100
16870 Communications Reduction -16,000
Interim Contractor Support
As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee has transferred
a total of $502,700,000 from various Air Force procurement accounts to
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. This includes $396,600,000
associated with the C 17, and $106,600,000 associated with various other
weapons systems. In the Committee's view, this funding, since it covers
expenses such as sustainment spares and depot maintenance, should be
both budgeted for and appropriated under Operation and Maintenance, Air
Force, rather than in the procurement accounts.
Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot Program
The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 above the budget
request to continue and expand the Manufacturing Technology Assistance
Pilot Program (MTAPP). Of this amount, not less than $2,000,000 shall be
available only to expand the MTAP program to Pennsylvania.
McClellan Air Force Base
The Committee notes that with the impending closure of McClellan Air
Force Base, unique research assets will become available to the local
community. Accordingly, the Committee supports the provision included in
the House-passed National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year
2000 which provides for the transfer of the McClellan Nuclear Radiation
Center.
Enterprise Integration Program
The Committee urges the Air Force and the Defense Logistics Agency to
jointly consider the development and implementation of an Enterprise
Integration program to improve the quality and availability of
logistical data necessary to support the acquisition of spare and repair
parts required to field Air Force weapons systems.
REMIS
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Technology section of this report.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $10,914,076,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 11,419,233,000
Committee recommendation 11,401,733,000
Change from budget request -17,500,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,401,733,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an
increase of $487,657,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year
1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folio 98 insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
17050 JCS Exercises: -35,000
17100 SOCOM--ASDS Slip -3,000
17100 SOCOM--JTT/CIBS M 500
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
17250 DLA--Warstopper 3,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
17460 DAU--Organizational Composition Research 2,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
17775 Starbase 300
17775 Innovative Readiness Training -15,000
17800 Classified and Intelligence 11,600
17900 DCAA--Low priority program growth -5,000
17900 DCAA--Performance Measures -2,000
18000 DHRA--DIMHRS -41,200
18000 DHRA--DEERS 8,000
18000 DHRA--DCPDS (program slip) -2,000
18200 DLA--Automated Document Conversion 12,500
18200 DLA--Security Locks 10,000
18200 DLA--Performance Measures -5,000
18200 DLA--Improved Cargo Methods 4,000
18310 DSCA--Performance Measures -2,000
18475 DTRA--Treaty Implementation -4,500
18475 DTRA--Performance Measures -2,000
18500 DoDEA--WIC Program Overseas 2,000
18600 JCS--JMEANS 4,500
18600 JCS--Management Support -5,000
18650 OEA--Pico Rivera 2,000
18650 OEA--Completion of Fort Ord conversion support 5,000
18650 OEA--Completion of San Diego Conversion Center 5,000
18700 OSD--C4ISR 6,000
18700 OSD--NGB Project Management System 5,000
18700 OSD--NE/SA Center for Security Studies 1,500
18700 OSD--Middle East Regional Security Issues 1,500
18700 OSD--Energy Savings Performance Contracts 8,000
18700 OSD--Job Placement Program 4,000
18700 OSD--Youth Development and Leadership Program 300
18700 OSD--Performance Measures -10,000
18700 OSD--Youth Development Initiative 2,500
18700 OSD--Management and Contract Support -15,000
18700 OSD--(A&T) Travel and Contracts -10,000
18700 OSD--Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities 12,000
18900 WHS--Low Priority Programs -10,000
18900 WHS--Defense Travel Service -32,000
18900 WHS--Emergency Notification 2,500
19110 Impact Aid 35,000
19250 JCS Mobility Enhancements 50,000
19295 Human Resources Enterprise Strategy 7,500
19305 Headquarters and Management -40,000
19335 Contract and Advisory Services -10,000
19341 United Service Organizations 25,000
Performance Measures
The Committee is disappointed with the quality of the performance
measures included in the Department's Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide budget justification books. On multiple occasions the
Congress has made clear its intentions to link an agency's budget to the
quality of its performance measures and the progress it makes in
improving its performance. The Committee recommends reductions totaling
$21,000,000 against those defense agencies that presented weak or
non-existent performance goals.
DLA--Warstoppers
The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for the warstopper program
to be used to maintain industrial readiness through microcircuit
solutions like the Department's Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits
program.
Defense Acquisition University
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Defense Systems
Management College, only for the Information Technology Organizational
Composition Research Project. The Committee also supports the Defense
Acquisition University's efforts to use state-of-the-art commercial
training technology that would train the acquisition workforce in a
simulated government procurement environment.
FAMILY THERAPY PROGRAM
The Department's National Guard Youth Challenge program has developed
a residential program for at-risk youths which focuses on providing
leadership, responsible citizenship, job skills, life coping skills, and
educational and physical fitness programs. The Committee urges the
Department to consider adding to this curriculum an in-depth family
reintegration phase to the Challenge Youth program, which addresses the
problems of family disintegration and juvenile violence.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
The Committee understands that due to unusual circumstances the
Department had to budget for $400,000 in security costs in the Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account, but that starting in fiscal year
2001, these expenses will be properly realigned to the Defense Working
Capital Fund.
Information Technology Programs
Information on Defense Human Resources Agency (DEERS), Defense Human
Resources Agency (DIMHRS), Military Personnel Information Systems, and
Automated Document Conversion programs can be found in the Information
Technology section of this report.
DLA--Security Locks
Federal Specification FF L 2740A was established by the Inter-Agency
Committee on Security Equipment as the standard for providing secure
protection to our nation's most sensitive classified material. In the
past, the Committee has supported Department of Defense efforts to
retrofit existing containers with security locks that conform to this
specification.
The Committee is concerned, however, that sensitive classified
materials in the possession of defense contractors are not subject to
the same protection under Federal Specification FF L 2740A, as mandated
by Executive Order 12829. While new containers purchased by defense
contractors must have locks which meet or exceed this specification,
there remain a great deal of classified materials stored by defense
contractors in containers which fall well below the prescribed standard.
The Committee therefore directs the Department to retrofit all
security containers under the control of, or accessed by defense
contractors with locks meeting the federal specification FF L 2740A. The
Committee has provided $10,000,000 for this purpose, and expects full
utilization of these funds in the current fiscal year.
DLA--Improved Cargo Methods
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only to test, develop and
implement cost saving opportunities identified in ongoing studies of
private sector logistics technology, practices and procedures to move
military cargo more cheaply, with greater speed, and with greater
reliability.
DTRA--Treaty Implementation
The Committee recommends a reduction of $4,500,000 due to delays in
treaty implementation and changes in requirements. If additional funds
prove necessary to meet emergent requirements stemming from valid treaty
obligations, the Committee expects the Department to submit a
reprogramming request subject to normal, prior approval reprogramming
procedures.
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)--Management Support
The Committee recommends a reduction of $5,000,000 from JCS
Management Support. None of this, or any other reduction, is to be taken
against the Joint Staff's efforts in Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide to support Joint Vision 2010.
JCS--J MEANS
The Committee recommends $4,500,000 only for the Joint
Multi-Dimensional Education and Analysis System (J MEANS). This program
will incorporate the National Defense University's wargaming modules and
allow students to fully assess the effect of alternate strategies and
technologies in an information age battlefield.
OSD--C4ISR
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only to sustain the enhanced
Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Integrated Architecture Program and to extend
the development across all the unified commands.
OSD--Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies
The Committee supports the Department's plans to examine establishing
a Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies to promote a stable
regional security environment, enhance military-to-military exchanges
and to promote regional security cooperation. The Committee recommends
$1,500,000 for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, International
Security Affairs, to facilitate planning for the Center.
OSD--Middle East Regional Security Issues
The Committee recommends providing $1,500,000 for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs only to support
current and established programs, conducted since 1993, to promote
informal region-wide dialogues on Arms Control and regional security
issues for Arab and Israeli officials and experts.
OSD ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS
The Committee recommends $8,000,000 only to assist in training,
providing technical expertise, performing energy audits, and otherwise
assisting in the ESPC process.
OSD--Job Placement Program
The Committee understands that the Department has been fully briefed
on an innovative job placement and community outreach services program,
FirstDay of the Future. With the imminent closure of Kelly and McClellan
Air Force Bases, the Committee continues to believe that this innovated
program will be beneficial to the effected military and civilian
personnel and their families. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$4,000,000 only to expeditiously implement this program.
OSD--Youth Development and Leadership Program
The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 over the budget
request for the Youth Development and Leadership program, only to
develop a safety net program to serve as the follow-up activity for the
program initiated under Public Law 105 174.
osd--youth development initiative
The Committee recommends $2,500,000, consistent with Section 8107,
only for a grant to a widely respected non-profit organization to
finance on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis efforts to mobilize
individuals, groups, and organizations to build and strengthen the
character and competence of America's youth.
osd--management and contract support
The Committee is concerned about the continued growth in contractor
support to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), that more than
offsets the reductions made in OSD personnel. The Committee therefore
recommends a reduction of $15,000,000 and directs that none of this, or
any other reduction, be taken against the studies funded through the
Office of Net Assessment.
whs--emergency notification
The Committee notes the success the Pentagon's Army Operation Center
has had with its automated emergency notification system and recommends
$2,500,000 only to field the system to other organizations in the
Department with similar notification requirements.
JCS MOBILITY ENHANCEMENTS
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 to support Transportation
Command's mobility enhancements efforts. The Committee believes that the
Center for Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies should
be considered for up to $15,000,000 of this amount.
NATIONAL CURATION PILOT PROJECT
The Committee understands that the Department has a requirement to
safely store over 41,000 cubic feet of cultural and historical artifacts
collected from public lands and to make these collections available to
the public. In response to this, the Defense Legacy Resources Management
Program awarded a grant to the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with
the State of Montana, to study and develop a design for a curatorial
collections and processing building. The curation pilot project is
designed to lead to the construction of new facilities in cooperation
with the pilot institutions who will rehabilitate federally-associated
collections for the Department. The Committee understands that the study
is complete. The Committee therefore directs the Department to provide
this report to the Committee by September 30, 1999, and the Department
is encouraged to move forward with this important effort.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY EDUCATION
The increasing dependence by the Department of Defense on computers
and computer communications has also increased its vulnerability to
attacks on these information systems. This threat to a national critical
infrastructure mandates the fostering and ongoing support of
well-educated professionals that are able to protect our critical
information system. The President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection completed a two-year study that concluded, in
part, that a significant portion of the nation's infrastructure
protection is tied to the development of information security
professionals.
The Committee is aware that, although there are several post-graduate
level educational programs currently available for advanced training in
this area, there are no doctorate level programs currently available.
The Committee believes that the development of a doctoral program in
information security is required to provide a flow of individuals with
the knowledge and credentials to support the expanding needs of the
Department. The Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review
requirements for doctorate-level information systems security
professionals within the Department and, if appropriate, consider
sponsoring the establishment of doctorate level education programs in
educational institutions capable of providing this level of training.
IMPROVED GENERAL PURPOSE TENTS
The Committee is pleased with the Army's successful development of a
modular general purpose tent system (M.G.P.T.S.) to replace the current
general purpose small, medium and large tents, which use 1940's design
and manufacturing techniques. The M.G.P.T.S. has been designed to serve
as a new generation of tents, providing greater durability and improved
performance when exposed to severe weather. The Committee believes the
new system may better support Marine and Air Force field operations and
encourages utilization of the improved system by these forces.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY
The Committee understands that before and after school programs are a
strong support system to families living on military bases. The
Committee believes that consideration should be given to enhancing
services including tutorial and learning enrichment programs.
PINE BLUFF ARSENAL SUSTAINMENT TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to establish a
Sustainment Training and Technical Assistance Program at Pine Bluff
Arsenal, AR, for chemical and biological defense equipment in support of
the Department of Justice equipment grant program.
LEGACY
The Committee encourages the Department to consider the U.S.S.
Constitution museum for funding in its legacy program.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Additional recommendations by the Committee are described in the
classified annex accompanying this report.
Offset Folios 105 Insert here
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,202,622,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,369,213,000
Committee recommendation 1,513,076,000
Change from budget request +143,863,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,513,076,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an
increase of $310,454,000 above the $1,202,622,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
19620 Mission Operations/Increased Optempo 20,000
19640 Forces Readiness Operations Support/Training Area Environmental Management 1,000
19660 Depot Maintenance 3,400
19680 Base Support 10,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
20070 Recruiting and Advertising 25,000
Other Adjustments:
20090 Real Property Maintenance 10,000
20120 Recruiting Support 3,500
20360 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 39,563
20365 Information Management 27,000
20365 Information Operations 4,400
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $957,239,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 917,647,000
Committee recommendation 969,478,000
Change from budget request +51,831,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $969,478,000 for
Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an
increase of $12,239,000 above the $957,239,000 appropriated for fiscal
year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folio 107 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlBudget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
22055 Recruiting and Advertising 3,000
22060 Recruiting Support 5,000
xlOther Adjustments:
xl 22794 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality
of Life Enhancements) 13,831
22796 Base Operations 10,000
22810 Real Property Maintenance 10,000
22815 Contributory Support to CINCs 10,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $117,893,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 123,266,000
Committee recommendation 143,911,000
Change from budget request +20,645,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $143,911,000 for
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is
an increase of $26,018,000 above the $117,893,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folio 109 insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
xlBudget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
23600 Maintenance of Real Property 4,000
xlOther Adjustments:
24110 Increased Use of Guard and Reserves 1,200
xl 24220 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality
of Life Enhancements) 945
24250 Initial Issue 10,000
24260 782 Career Gear Issue 3,000
24270 Spares 1,500
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,747,696,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,728,437,000
Committee recommendation 1,788,091,000
Change from budget request +59,654,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,788,091,000 for
Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an
increase of $40,395,000 above the $1,747,696,000 appropriated for fiscal
year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folio 111 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
24970 Depot Maintenance 15,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
25400 Recruiting and Advertising 1,500
1,000
Other Adjustments:
25510 Real Property Maintenance 10,000
25520 Base Operations 10,000
25558 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 12,154
25570 C 130 Operations 10,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $2,678,015,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,903,549,000
Committee recommendation 3,103,642,000
Change from budget request +200,093,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,103,642,000 for
Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an
increase of $425,627,000 above the $2,678,015,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folio 113 Insert here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
10,000
6,264
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
17,500
6,500
Other Adjustments:
48,000
10,000
10,000
60,629
10,000
14,000
4,200
3,000
Army National Guard Center
The Committee understands that the Headquarters, 53rd Support
Battalion, Army National Guard is in extensive need of repair and
renovation. The Committee has provided additional funds for Real
Property Maintenance for the Army National Guard's backlog of repair and
maintenance projects, and directs that $1,000,000 be designated for
repair of the armory in Florida.
ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER
The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property
Maintenance for the Army National Guard and directs that $3,000,000 be
provided for remedial site preparation for the Eugene Armed Forces
Reserve Center and Organizational Maintenance Shop.
National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Technology section of this report.
National Guard Distance Learning
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Technology section of this report.
NGB Project Management System
The Committee recommends a total increase of $8,000,000 for the
National Guard's Project Management System. The Committee understands
that the National Guard Bureau has taken the lead within the Department
to implement a project management system using the latest commercially
developed off-the-shelf technology, which will enable program managers
to better manage programs in a timely manner and stay within budget and
cost limits. The Committee believes that the National Guard Bureau
Project Management System Pilot Project has tremendous applicability
throughout all services and urges the Secretary of Defense to implement
this program throughout the Department. The Committee has included
$3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard for the
continuation of the Project Management System Pilot Project, and
$5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide to implement this
project management system throughout the Department.
REPAIR OF UH 1 ENGINES
The Committee understands that the Army National Guard's UH 1
Iroquois helicopter fleet has been restricted in the types of missions
flown because of the unreliability of the T 53 engines, many of which
require major repairs or overhaul for deficiencies. The Committee urges
the Secretary of the Army to consider the use of commercial practices
regarding the repair and overhaul of these helicopter engines.
MOFFETT FIELD AND MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE
The Committee recognizes the many advantages of the Moffett Airfield
complex and the March Air Reserve Base for providing needed facilities
in supporting the ongoing effort to upgrade domestic preparedness
against weapons of mass destruction. Moffett's infrastructure and
command and control capabilities include not only the airfield, but
critical Federal, civil and housing assets, including NASA/Ames, Onizuka
Air Station, DoD and DoT activities, together with the unique emergency
support capabilities of the California Air National Guard 129th Rescue
Wing, FEMA and the Red Cross.
March Air Reserve Base hosts various military and civilian activities
including Air Mobility, National Guard Refueling, and a Fighter Wing
serving the U.S. Customs Service Domestic Air Interdiction. March is a
fully operational public safety training complex which combines law
enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency management, response and medical
training for first responders or biological and chemical terrorism, SWAT
training, domestic terrorism and fire technology for hazardous
materials.
The Committee urges the Department and cognizant state and local
officials to fully consider Moffett's and March's operational and
support capabilities when selecting new locations for expanding the
capability of weapons of mass destruction first responders to train,
equip and support local authorities in California. The Committee
requests a report from DoD/National Guard and Reserves by December 31,
1999 on use of these key Federal facilities.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $3,106,933,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 3,099,618,000
Committee recommendation 3,239,438,000
Change from budget request +139,820,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,239,438,000 for
Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an
increase of $132,505,000 above the $3,106,933,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 1999.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folio 117 Insert Here
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
10,000
5,000
4,800
10,000
20,000
15,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
4,000
Other Adjustments:
63,020
5,000
2,000
1,000
National Guard State Partnership Program
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 only for the National Guard's
State Partnership Program. The Committee directs that these funds be
used to support theater engagement opportunities for National Guard
soldiers and state civilian personnel who directly support the State
Partnership Program and civil-military engagement goals and for the
National Guard Minuteman Fellows Program which the Committee has
supported in the past.
C 130 Operations
The Committee recommends a total of $1,500,000 over the budget
request for personnel and operation and maintenance costs to support the
restoration of C 130 operational capabilities for the Florida Air
National Guard.
159th Air National Guard Fighter Group
The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 over the budget
request in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard and directs
that these funds be used for the operation of C 130H operational support
aircraft of the 159th ANG Fighter Group.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $439,400,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,387,600,000
Committee recommendation 1,812,600,000
Change from budget request -575,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,812,600,000 for the
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. The funding in this
paragraph provides for ongoing DoD operations in Southwest Asia and
Bosnia. Due to the termination of air operations over Kosovo and reduced
air operations tempo over Southwest Asia, the Committee recommends a
reduction of $575,000,000 from the budget request.
Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials
The Committee notes that the budget request includes a relative lack
of justification data concerning U.S. participation in contingency
operations in both the Military Personnel accounts, the Procurement
accounts and the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund.
Accordingly, the Committee includes a new general provision, Section
8111, which requires the Department of Defense to include the same type
of budget justification materials as are provided for other Department
of Defense activities. In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees
at the end of each quarter of the fiscal year, with the first such
report due on December 31, 1999, detailing both the financial
transactions associated with the Overseas Contingency Operations
Transfer Fund as well as all other appropriation accounts from which
contingency operations expenses are paid, and programmatic data for each
contingency operation. This budget execution data shall include the
amounts paid from each appropriation account to include funds
distributed from the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund to
each appropriation account, for each contingency operation; a comparison
of actual troop strength for active duty and Guard and Reserve
components for each contingency operation compared to the amounts
anticipated in the budget request; and, a comparison of major weapons
systems, including but not limited to all types of aircraft, naval
vessels and major ground equipment items for each active duty and Guard
and Reserve component for each contingency operation compared to the
level assumed in the budget request.
Kosovo Base Camp Construction
The Committee is aware of ongoing efforts to construct two base camps
that will house U.S. troops deployed in support of the NATO peacekeeping
force in Kosovo. While the Committee acknowledges that such efforts are
essential to support the quality of life for deployed troops, the
Committee agrees with the language included in the report accompanying
the House version of the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction
Appropriations bill. Accordingly, the Committee reminds the Department
of Defense that Section 110 of Public Law 105 237 prohibits construction
of new bases overseas without prior notification to the Committee on
Appropriations.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $7,324,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 7,621,000
Committee recommendation 7,621,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,621,000 for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation
is an increase of $297,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year
1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $370,640,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 378,170,000
Committee recommendation 378,170,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $378,170,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$7,530,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
The Committee is encouraged by the Department's progress in
remediating the environmental contamination at the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal site near Denver, Colorado, and in facilitating the successful
conversion and reuse of the property. The Committee encourages the
Defense Department to continue to fully support the cleanup and
conversion projects at this site.
Environmental Remediation Contracts
The Committee is concerned about the Department's limited use of
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for
environmental remediation. The Committee directs the Department to
report to the congressional defense committees on how this contract
vehicle compares with other contract options in cost, involvement of
small businesses and inclusion of local companies.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $274,600,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 284,000,000
Committee recommendation 284,000,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $284,000,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$9,400,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $372,100,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 376,800,000
Committee recommendation 376,800,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $376,800,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase
of $4,700,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $26,091,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 25,370,000
Committee recommendation 25,370,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,370,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is a
decrease of $721,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $225,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 199,214,000
Committee recommendation 209,214,000
Change from budget request +10,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $209,214,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The
recommendation is a decrease of $15,786,000 from the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 1999.
Camp Croft
The Committee is concerned about the unexploded ordnance at the
former Camp Croft and the danger this poses to the safety of the
citizens living on or near this former military base. The Committee
encourages the Department to address this problem as quickly and as
completely as possible.
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
The Committee is concerned about the soil and groundwater
contamination at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The Committee
understands that the U.S. Army has signed an interagency agreement with
the Environmental Protection agency and the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources and urges the Department to allocate the funds
necessary to implement the projects required by this agreement.
NEWMARK
The Committee continues to have serious concern about the
Department's failure to respond at a senior level to groundwater
contamination at the Newmark and Muscoy Superfund sites in California.
The Committee understands that both the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the City of San Bernardino believe that the contamination is a
direct result of industrial waste from Camp Ono, a World War II depot
and maintenance facility. The EPA has reported that there is ``no other
reasonable source for the contamination,'' than the former Army base,
and, more recently, that the Army is ``a likely source of the
contamination.''
Report language in the conference reports accompanying the fiscal
year 1997 and 1998 Defense Appropriations Bills highlighted the urgency
of this problem and requested adequate funding and prompt action by the
Department to remediate this site. The Committee is disappointed with
the Department's response. The Department has, thus far, ignored a
September, 1998 court order to mediate the dispute. The Committee is
particularly concerned by the Department's lack of a response to the
Committee's November, 1998 request for senior-level mediation involving
the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, the
Committee strongly believes that the Department should, within 60 days
of enactment of this Act, initiate mediation in this matter with the EPA
and report to the congressional defense committees fully explaining the
Department's plan to reach a timely resolution to this matter.
OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $50,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 55,800,000
Committee recommendation 55,800,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,800,000 for Overseas
Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is an increase
of $5,800,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $440,400,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 475,500,000
Committee recommendation 456,100,000
Change from budget request -19,400,000
This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request
in accordance with House authorization action.
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction 475,500 456,100 -19,400
Strategic Nuclear Arms Elimination Ukraine 33,000 43,000 +10,000
Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination Russia 157,300 177,300 +20,000
Weapons Transportation Russia 15,200 15,200 0
Weapons Storage Security Russia 40,000 90,000 +50,000
Warhead Dismantlement Processing Russia 9,300 9,300 0
Reactor Core Conversion 20,000 20,000 0
Fissile Material Storage Russia 64,500 60,900 -3,600
Chemical Weapons Destruction Russia 130,400 24,600 -105,800
Defense and Military Contacts 2,000 0 -2,000
Other Assessments 1,800 1,800 0
PROJECT LEVEL TABLE
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention Russia 2,000 14,000 +12,000
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
The Department recommended $475,500,000 for the Former Soviet Union
Threat Reduction programs. The Committee recommends $456,100,000, a net
decrease of $19,400,000. The Committee has recommended changes to each
program in accordance with the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
However, the Committee is also recommending an increase of $12,000,000
for the biological weapons proliferation prevention program for
additional security enhancements.
QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $455,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,845,370,000
Committee recommendation 800,000,000
Change from budget request -1,045,370,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $800,000,000 for Quality
of Life Enhancements, Defense. The recommendation is an increase of
$345,000,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
The President's budget proposed providing $1,845,370,000 for this
account. However, upon examination the Committee has determined these
funds are intended to be used for general real property maintenance
projects, and not solely quality of life-related efforts, which was the
basis for the Committee's having created this account several years ago.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends providing the $1,845,370,000,
requested by the administration in this account directly to the Services
in their respective Operation and Maintenance accounts.
For this account, the Committee provides an increase of $800,000,000
for active component real property maintenance which is reserved only
for quality of life related projects. The Committee designates the
increased funding provided in this account as a special interest item,
subject to normal prior approval reprogramming procedures.
The adjustments to the budget request for Quality of Life
Enhancements, Defense are shown in the table below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense: Program Increases:
Army $182,600
Navy 285,200
Marine Corps 62,100
Air Force 259,600
10,500
NTC LEA (1,200)
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense: Transfers Out:
Army 625,808
Navy 508,369
Marine Corps 120,225
Air Force 400,826
Army Reserve 39,563
Navy Reserve 13,831
Marine Corps Reserve 945
Air Force Reserve 12,154
Army National Guard 60,629
Air National Guard 63,020
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense procurement budget request
totals $51,851,538,000. The accompanying bill recommends
$53,031,397,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of
$1,179,859,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget estimate and is
$4,440,977,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 1999. The table
below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's
recommendations.
Offset folio 125 insert here
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the
project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ``only for'' or
``only to'' in this report are Congressional interest items for the
purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these
items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a
revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically
addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest
whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Adjustments to classified programs are addressed in a classified
annex accompanying this report.
RANGELESS TRAINING
Last year, the Congress directed the Defense Department to conduct a
technical evaluation between the Joint Tactical Combat Training System
and other alternatives to ensure that the best and most affordable
system is chosen to accomplish the rangeless training mission for the
Navy and the Air Force. The Department did an outstanding job of
initiating the evaluation on a timely basis. In particular, the
Committee commends the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology; the Director of Test, Systems Engineering
and Evaluation, Ranges and Resources; the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Readiness, Readiness and Training; the Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation, Conventional Systems; and the Joint Tactical
Training System project office. The Committee recognizes that
implementing the initiative took a great deal of time and commitment
from these organizations. The result of these efforts will allow the
Department to field a much-needed rangeless training system in the most
efficient and cost-effective manner.
The Navy and the Air Force requested a total of $42,300,000 to
continue the Joint Tactical Training System in fiscal year 2000 which
the Committee recommends. The procurement funds are designated to be of
special interest, and may only be obligated to procure equipment for the
system which DoD selects as the result of the congressionally-directed
technical evaluation.
FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TEST NEW STARTS
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all DoD
components follow new start notification procedures prior to award of
production contracts resulting from successful foreign comparative
tests. The Committee notes that DoD notification of the desire to test a
foreign system does not constitute notification of procurement of that
system.
AIR FORCE INTERIM CONTRACTOR SUPPORT
Interim Contractor Support is the maintenance and support of a new
weapon system provided by a commercial vendor pending transition to
organic support. Current DoD policy allows procurement appropriations to
fund Interim Contractor Support (ICS) whereas organic support is funded
in the operation and maintenance (O&M) appropriations. DoD policy calls
for all acquisition programs to minimize the scope and duration of ICS.
However, the Committee has recently learned of a growing trend in the
Air Force to abuse the ICS concept by maximizing its scope and duration,
effectively shifting the O&M burden of certain programs to the
procurement accounts. For example, the C 17 program now plans to use
approximately $400 million a year of procurement funding to finance
flying hour spares and depot aircraft maintenance for the life of the C
17 production program.
The Committee believes that using ICS in this manner blurs the
distinction between O&M and procurement appropriations and therefore
seriously compromises oversight in Congress and OSD. ICS represents
large pools of funding that a program manager could divert, without the
prior knowledge of Congress, for additional procurement end-items or
acquisition cost overruns while ``shorting'' operational forces. The
Committee also notes that in the last several years, DoD witnesses have
highlighted efforts to increase modernization funding to meet the Joint
Staff goal of $60 billion per year. Funding high levels of O&M effort in
the procurement accounts gives Congress a false picture of how well DoD
is meeting these higher modernization funding goals.
Given these concerns, the Committee recommendation includes a
transfer of $502.7 million from Air Force procurement to O&M
appropriations. The Committee directs the Air Force to fund all ICS in
the O&M accounts in future budget submissions.
REPROGRAMMING PROCEDURES
The Committee understands that DoD policy prevents defense components
from acting on notification reprogrammings until written approval has
been provided by the Senate defense committees. The Committee further
understands that DoD policy does not extend this courtesy to House
defense committees. The Committee believes that each of the
congressional defense committees should be accorded the same opportunity
to review and approve all reprogrammings submitted for Congressional
consideration, including notification reprogrammings. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure the reprogramming
policy is updated to reflect the requirement to receive written approval
from all congressional defense committees prior to implementing
reprogrammings, including notification reprogrammings. This direction
applies to all defense appropriations.
ARMY PROCUREMENT ISSUES
UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS LIST
This year, as in the past, the Committee requested that the Service
Chiefs provide ``unfunded requirements lists''. Usually the lists
include critical activities or items that the Services believe are not
adequately funded in the budget request, for example, base operations.
It has also been the Committee's understanding that the Secretary of
Defense only allows the Services to include those items that are
included in the current budget request and the outyears. However, the
Committee notes that several items on the Army's shortfall list are not
funded in the Future Years' Defense Plan and have such large outyear
funding requirements that the Committee does not believe they can be
accommodated in future budget submissions, such as the Huey, Blackhawk,
and the Bradley Service Life Extension Programs (SLEP). While programs
such as the Blackhawk SLEP have merit, the Committee is reluctant to add
a ``down payment'' of $31 million in fiscal year 2000 if the Army will
not budget the half billion dollars required in the outyears. Although
the Committee appreciates the Army Chief of Staff's candor when
submitting the Army's unfunded requirements list, the Committee
encourages him to include only items which are included in the budget
request and can be supported in future budget submissions.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,388,268,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,229,888,000
Committee recommendation 1,590,488,000
Change from budget request +360,600,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and utility
airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic
warfare, and communications equipment and armament, modification of
in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such
as spare engines, transmissions gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It
also funds related training devices such as combat flight simulators and
production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorization Changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
CH 47 Cargo Helicopter Mods 70,738 126,838 +56,100
Utility/Cargo Airplane Mods 6,308 9,308 +3,000
AH 64 Longbow Mods 729,536 774,536 +45,000
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
UH 60 BLACKHAWK (MYP) 86,140 207,140 +121,000
(NOTE: UH 60L aircraft are only for the Dual Mission General Support Aviation Company, National Guard, 40 Infantry Division) +67,000
(NOTE: UH 60Q aircraft are only for the National Guard)
AH 64 MODS 22,565 116,565 +94,000
(NOTE: Only for the National Guard) +3,000
UH 60 MODS 12,087 13,587 +1,500
AIRBORNE AVIONICS 43,690 47,090 +3,400
AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT 88 24,188 +24,100
COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT 35,915 37,915 +2,000
AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS 4,394 14,894 +10,500
APACHE A MODEL READINESS
The deployment of Task Force Hawk to Albania during Operation Allied
Force revealed a series of personnel training, readiness, and equipment
problems affecting the Army's Apache forces. The Committee is extremely
concerned with the condition of the current Apache fleet and has
recommended the following increases in procurement to alleviate
recognized deficiencies: $75,000,000 only to procure and integrate the
Second Generation Forward Looking Infrared Radar and $6,000,000 only to
procure and integrate HF radios on Apache A model helicopters. The
Committee also recommends an increase of $213,500,000 in Operations and
Maintenance, Army for spare parts and war reserve material. The
Committee expects that a portion of these funds will be used to meet
Apache requirements.
The Committee's recommendation procures upgrades for 24 Apache A
model helicopters. The Committee encourages the Army to adequately fund
upgrades for the remaining fleet in subsequent budget requests.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset folio 130 insert here
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,226,335,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,358,104,000
Committee recommendation 1,272,798,000
Change from budget request -85,306,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-air,
surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included
are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment, and
production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Avenger System Modifications 33,750 35,050 +1,300
Avenger Modifications 0 4,300 +4,300
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
JAVELIN (AAWS M) SYSTEM SUMMARY (AP CY) 98,406 0 -98,406
MLRS LAUNCHER SYSTEMS 130,634 138,134 +7,500
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset folio 132 insert here
PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,548,340,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,416,765,000
Committee recommendation 1,556,665,000
Change from budget request +139,900,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel and
cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles;
self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification
of in-service equipment, initial spares; and production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendations Change from request
Armor Machine Gun, 7.62MM M240 12,204 40,004 +27,800
Machine Gun, 5.56 (SAW) 0 10,100 +10,100
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
Bradley base sustainment 308,762 392,762 +84,000
(Note: Only for the National Guard) +4,000
Carrier, MOD 53,463 68,463 +15,000
Howitzer, 155MM M109A6 (MOD) 6,259 7,259 +1,000
M1 Abrams Tank Modifications 29,815 31,815 +2,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset folio 134 insert here
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,065,955,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,140,816,000
Committee recommendation 1,228,770,000
Change from budget request +87,954,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition,
modification of in-service stock, and related production base support
including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial
facilities and equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendations Changes from request
25MM, All Types 46,618 48,618 +2,000
40MM, All Types 36,645 44,645 +8,000
105MM DPICM XM915 0 5,000 +5,000
Bunker Defeating Munition 0 10,000 +10,000
Grenades, All types 11,431 16,431 +5,000
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
CTG, Mortar 60MM Smoke WP M722 0 4,000 +4,000
CTG Mortar 81MM Prac 1/10 Range M880 1,906 3,306 +1,400
CTG Mortar 120MM HE M934 W/MO Fuze 46,279 49,279 +3,000
CTG Mortar 120MM Illum XM930 W/MTSQ FZ 0 10,000 +10,000
CTG 120MM WP Smoke M929A1 51,819 59,619 +7,800
CTG 120MM APFSDS T M829A2/M829E3 0 32,000 +32,000
CTG 120MM HEAT MP T M830A1 0 22,000 +22,000
Proj Arty 155MM SADARM M898 54,546 0 -54,546
Mine at M87 (VOLCANO) 0 15,000 +15,000
Wide Area Munitions 10,387 20,837 +10,000
Provision of Industrial Facilities 46,139 53,439 +7,300
PROGRAM MANAGER FOR AMMUNITION
A July 1997 study conducted for the Army advocated the
reconfiguration and management of the U.S. munitions industrial base
through the creation of a single, general-officer level Program Manager
who would be responsible for overseeing the life-cycle development of
ammunition. According to the study, creating a single Program Manager
for ammunition would significantly reduce costs for the Army and provide
better management of the U.S. munitions industrial base. To date, the
Army has not implemented this recommendation. The Committee encourages
the Army to create a Program Manager for Ammunition at Picatinny Arsenal
and directs the Commander of the Army Materiel Command to report by
January 5, 2000, on his plan to implement this recommendation.
self-destruct fuzes
The Committee is aware that the Army has completed testing of, and
type classified, M234 and M235 self-destruct fuzes for artillery and
rocket grenades. The Committee believes that using a self-destruct fuze
in future production of grenades, bomblets and submunitions could reduce
the risk of unexploded ordnance casualities on the battlefield. The
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committee,
no later than December 31, 1999, an analysis of unexploded ordnance
issues and the recommended solutions including the use of self-destruct
fuzes.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset folios 137 to 138 insert here
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $3,339,486,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 3,423,870,000
Committee recommendation 3,604,751,000
Change from budget request +180,881,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and
commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-trailers, and trailers of
all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and
the worldwide logistical system; (b) communications and electronics
equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile
strategic and tactical communication equipment; (c) other support
equipment such as chemical defensive equipment, floating and rail
equipment, generators and power units, material handling equipment,
medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, and
non-system training devices. In each of these activities, funds are also
included for modification of in-service equipment, investment spares and
repair parts, and production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles 190,399 196,399 +6,000
Product Improved Combat Vehicle Crewman Headset 0 15,000 +15,000
Lightweight Video Reconnaissance System 3,436 5,936 +2,500
Combat Support Medical 25,250 40,250 +15,000
Roller, vibratory, self-propelled 0 10,300 +10,300
Compactor, high speed 9,798 12,938 +2,600
Crane, wheel mounted, 25 ton 12,089 20,089 +8,000
Items less than $2 million (Construction Equipment--UBM) 4,286 6,286 +2,000
Pusher tug, small 0 9,000 +9,000
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
Tactical Trailers/Dolly Sets 15,277 20,277 +5,000
HEMTT Modifications 4,901 11,701 +6,800
Modification of Inservice Equipment 29,769 33,269 +3,500
SHF Term 31,950 0 -31,950
SMART-T (Space) 61,761 31,761 -30,000
SCAMP (Space) 5,033 0 -5,033
Army Data Distribution System 36,763 58,763 +20,000
SINCGARS Family 13,205 33,205 20,000
ACUS Mod Program (WIN T/T) 109,056 115,956 +6,900
Medical Comm for CBT Casualty Care (MC4) 20,600 21,600 +1,000
Information System Security Program-ISS 28,750 39,450 +10,700
Joint Stars (Army) (TIARA) 82,176 107,176 +25,000
CI HUMINT Automated Tool Set (CHATS) (TIARA) 3,137 4,637 +1,500
Shortstop 0 28,000 +28,000
Night Vision Devices 20,977 67,777 +46,800
Combat Identification Aiming/Light 9,486 0 -9,486
Mod of In-Svc Equip (Tac Surv) 6,533 29,533 +23,000
Digitization Applique 66,423 56,423 -10,000
Mortar Fire Control System 3,740 0 -3,740
Maneuver Control System (MCS) 52,049 10,000 -42,049
Production Base Support (C E) 378 2,878 +2,500
Heavy Dry Supt Bridge System 13,980 17,980 +4,000
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Eqpmt (EOD E) 4,989 10,989 +6,000
Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure (LME) 2,128 3,728 +1,600
Distribution Sys, Pet and Water 10,716 13,716 +3,000
Generators and Associated Equip 78,639 81,639 +3,000
Combat Training Centers Support 2,450 9,050 +6,600
Training Devices, Nonsystem 67,374 75,124 +7,750
SIMNET/Close Combat Tactical Trainer 75,367 40,367 -35,000
Intergrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE) 41,602 56,602 +15,000
Modification of In-Svc Equipment (OPA 3) 24,852 39,352 +14,500
Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net System 0 20,000 +20,000
FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES
Recently, the Committee's Surveys and Investigations (S&I) staff
completed an in-depth analysis of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles
Program (FMTV). The Committee was very disturbed when it became aware of
the S&I staff's findings. The S&I staff, which spent many hours in the
field with unit personnel, found many problems with the truck. For
example: (1) Door latches do not secure properly causing the doors to
open during normal operations; (2) Starters which fail after only 2,000
miles of operation; (3) Transmission tanks that crack causing
anti-freeze and transmission fluid to mix; (4) Tail gates that cannot be
closed with troops seated because the truck bed warps; and (5) Batteries
that boil over and leak acid onto air tanks causing corrosion. The S&I
staff found many other problems, from poorly constructed seats to
fragile bumpers. The Committee remains troubled that the FM TV truck has
so many outstanding technical issues.
Additionally, the S&I staff found that even though the Army claims
that many of the problems identified by the S&I staff are being
resolved, the Army is unable to provide even rudimentary cost estimates
for fixing the problems. The Committee directs that the Army provide the
Congress, no later than December 15, 1999, a report that addresses the
outstanding technical and operational problems with the FMTV, the
solution for each problem and the cost of implementing each solution.
Information Technology Programs
Information on the Committee's proposed adjustments to the LAN,
LogTech, STAMIS, and ADPE programs can be found in the Information
Technology section of this report.
tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (tuav)
The Committee supports the Army's revised Acquisition Strategy for
the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV). This revised strategy was
outlined in a March 26, 1999 letter from the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. The revised strategy
includes the termination of the Outrider Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstration and a new competition to meet the Army's TUAV requirement.
The Committee notes that since the new strategy was presented to
Congress after submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget, funding for
the TUAV was not requested in the proper appropriation. The Army
requested procurement funding for the Outrider vehicle, not research and
development funding for the new acquisition strategy. The Committee has
made the necessary correction by reducing Outrider procurement funding
by $45,863,000 and increasing the research and development funding for
tactical unmanned aerial vehicle by $40,000,000, a net reduction of
$5,863,000 which the Committee believes is justified given the revised
acquisition plan.
The Committee directs that the Army consider reliability and
interoperability with the Tactical Control System (TCS) as critical
source selection evaluation criteria for the new TUAV.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 143 to 148 Insert here
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $7,541,709,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 8,228,655,000
Committee recommendation 9,168,405,000
Change from budget request +939,750,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft and
related support equipment and programs; flight simulators; equipment to
modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life, eliminate
safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spare
parts and ground support equipment for all end items procured by this
appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorization Changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
V 22 796,392 856,392 +60,000
Special Project Aircraft 28,782 30,782 +2,000
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Commitee recommended Change from request
CH 60S 208,493 284.493 +76,000
JPATS 44,826 55,826 +11,000
KC 130J 12,257 576,257 +564,000
EA 6 Series 161,047 272,047 +111,000
18 Series 308,789 281,789 -27,000
AH 1W Series 13,726 16,726 +3,000
SH 60 Series 56,824 60,324 +3,500
H 1 Series 6,339 16,339 +10,000
EP 3 Series 27,433 44,433 +17,000
P 3 Series 276,202 361,202 +85,000
2 Series 28,201 55,101 +26,900
6 Series 86,950 85,250 -1,700
Special Project Aircraft 28,782 30,782 +2,000
Common ECM Equipment 50,584 58,584 +8,000
Common Ground Equipment 413,732 379,782 -33,950
Other Production Charges 39,991 64,991 +25,000
V 22 aircraft
The Navy requested $796,392,000 for 10 V 22 aircraft. The Committee
recommends $856,392,000, an increase of $60,000,000 for one additional V
22. The Committee strongly endorses the Department's plan to replace
aging CH 46E's and CH 53D's with the versatile and comparatively quieter
V 22 Osprey. The Committee expects the Department to accelerate the
procurement of the V 22 to achieve the most economical buy rate. In
addition, the Committee directs the Department to accelerate the stand
up of West Coast V 22 squadrons in order to provide better operational
support and geographical balance.
KC 130J AIRCRAFT
The Marine Corps requested $12,257,000 for support of KC 130J
aircraft. The Committee recommends $576,257,000 to procure eight
aircraft and their associated support equipment, an increase of
$564,000,000. The Marine Corps requires 51 KC 130J aircraft to replace
KC 130F air-to-air refueler/tactical transports, the oldest aircraft in
the Marine Corps' inventory, which were procured between 1960 1962 and
are currently being flown by the active forces. KC 130Fs comprise 73
percent of the Marine Corps active force tanker inventory and 45 percent
of the Department of Defense's rotary wing capable tanker inventory.
They play a vital role in supporting forward-deployed Marine Air-Ground
Task Forces and other CINC forward presence missions.
Current KC 130F aircraft are not night vision capable, they lack
external fuel tanks (which reduces range by 1000 miles or fuel offload
capability by 18,000 pounds), and they lack defensive systems to warn
and protect from enemy missile attack. The KC 130F fleet averages over
22,000 flight hours and 12,000 landings per aircraft. An engineering
assessment completed in December 1998 indicated that actual center wing
fatigue life remaining on these aircraft is significantly less than
previously estimated. The Marine Corps subsequently informed the
Committee that the urgency of the need for KC 130J aircraft to replace
those in-service aircraft significantly increased after the fiscal year
2000 budget request was submitted to Congress. During the last four
years, 3 aircraft (6 percent of the active tanker fleet) were struck
from operation due to fatigue. Today, while the inventory requirement is
79 KC 130 tanker aircraft, the Marines are only operating at 77
aircraft.
The Committee agrees with Marine Corps assessments concerning the
overwhelming need to modernize the tactical tanker aircraft force. The
Committee notes that even with congressional funding, 80 percent of the
Marine Corps requirement for KC 130J aircraft has not been budgeted. The
Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the fiscal
year 2001 and subsequent budgets contain sufficient funds to sustain the
KC 130J line at an efficient rate after fiscal year 2000.
JOINT PRIMARY AIRCRAFT TRAINING SYSTEM
The Navy requested $44,826,000 for procurement of 8 JPATS training
aircraft. The Committee recommends $55,826,000 for 12 aircraft, an
increase of $11,000,000. This includes $12,000,000 for procurement of 4
additional aircraft only for the navigator (UNFO) mission, and a
decrease of $1,000,000 as recommended by House authorization action due
to excessive engineering change order allowances. The Navy recently
informed the Committee that by replacing 16 older training aircraft with
9 new JPATS aircraft, it could save $16,000,000 annually while also
significantly improving the quality of training. In this bill, the
Committee has recommended the maximum number of additional JPATS
aircraft in both Navy and Air Force aircraft procurement accounts
allowable under the current contract, in order to take advantage of the
contract's favorable pricing. The Committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to ensure that the fiscal year 2001 budget contains funds for the
remaining 5 JPATS UNFO aircraft.
e/a 6b aircraft
With the retirement of the Air Force EF 111 aircraft, the EA 6B has
become the Defense Department's primary escort jammer aircraft to
support combat strike missions. The crews and aircraft of Navy and
Marine EA 6B squadrons performed admirably during Operation Allied
Force. However, due to the Department's overall lack of jamming
aircraft, the forces were stretched, air crews were stressed, and the
logistics support tail was strained. This operation also made it clear
that even advanced stealth aircraft benefit from escort jamming from the
EA 6B, counter to assumptions made when the EF 111s were retired.
The Committee views recent EA 6B operations be it in Operation Allied
Force, or in the ongoing sanctions enforcement operations around Iraq,
as a premier example of the actual and potential future benefits of
joint service combat operations. The Committee believes this clearly
indicates that more, not less, tactical escort jamming support, will be
needed in the future. Yet the EA 6B airframe has limited life remaining
and its limited numbers have already posed severe challenges to
operational planners. Therefore, the Committee bill recommends an
additional $227,000,000 to reinvigorate the tactical jamming aircraft
force.
The fiscal year 1999 Supplemental Appropriations Act financing the
cost of Operation Allied Force provided $300,000,000 for a operational
rapid response fund. The Defense Department has indicated that a number
of EA 6B near-term upgrades will be financed from the supplemental
funds, to include: $45,000,000 for band 9/10 jammers, $39,000,000 for
universal exciters, and $30,400,000 for miniaturized automated tactical
terminals/integrated data modems. Although these items provide important
and quick warfighting improvements to the EA 6B fleet (a use for the
fund consistent with its creation by this Committee), they do not
address the mid and long term fleet force structure and modernization
issues.
Therefore, the Committee recommends an additional $111,000,000 in
Aircraft Procurement, Navy for EA 6B enhancements. This includes
$60,000,000 for the procurement of high-fidelity simulators for EA 6B
bases at Cherry Point, North Carolina and Whidbey Island, Washington;
$31,000,000 to procure and install EA 6B night vision equipment; and
$20,000,000 to remanufacture a test aircraft into an operational asset.
The rationale for these additions as follows. After the budget was
submitted, the Navy informed the Committee that competitively procuring
high fidelity simulators for east and west coast EA 6B bases was
feasible and would result in reduced need for aircraft flight training
hours, more airframes for forward deployment, and reduced airframe wear.
Outfitting the EA 6Bs with night vision devices increases operational
effectiveness while reducing crew risk to enemy optically guided
surface-to-air missiles. Finally, refurbishment of an EA 6B test asset
will result in one additional combat aircraft deployed to the fleet.
The EA 6B force structure, already heavily tasked to meet current
commitments, will decline over time due to aircraft wear and attrition
and cannot be augmented with new production aircraft on a cost-effective
basis. Moreover, in about ten years, the EA 6B fleet size and
capabilities will begin a steady decline as older aircraft reach the age
of retirement. The Defense Department currently has no plan to meet
these eventualities, and therefore, the Committee believes it would be
prudent to begin planning now to ensure that no EA 6B force degradation
occurs. Elsewhere in this report, the Committee recommends an additional
$116,000,000 in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
account for tactical jamming aircraft enhancements. This includes
$60,000,000 to provide the EA 6B with Link 16 connectivity; $16,000,000
to initiate an analysis of alternatives for a follow-on jammer aircraft;
and $40,000,000 to immediately begin risk reduction and concept
development for a F/A 18E/F variant to become the follow-on tactical
jamming aircraft. The Committee urges the Defense Department to expand
the tactical jammer aircraft fleet, in particular to capitalize upon the
operational need and advantages which accrue from combining jamming with
stealth aircraft, by introducing a tactical jamming variant of the F/A
18E/F aircraft by the year 2006.
CONSOLIDATED AUTOMATED SUPPORT SYSTEM
The Navy has standardized its aircraft support equipment through the
Consolidated Automated Support System. The Committee believes that the
Navy should develop a longer term acquisition strategy, rather than
using annual buys, in order to stabilize the program and achieve cost
reductions.
Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS)
The Committee remains concerned about the lack of progress that has
been made in fielding new technologies to meet Marine Corps tactical
reconnaissance requirements. The F/A 18 ATARS program has been hindered
with a troubled past and despite its recent deployment to meet emergency
requirements in the Balkans region, is limited by technology developed
in the mid-1980's. Following an investment of almost $1,000,000,000 and
15-years of development effort, the ATARS program remains plagued with
annoying maintenance issues, has yet to complete a successful
Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL), and has not been certified for full
rate production.
Therefore, the Committee directs that prior to the obligation of any
fiscal year 2000 appropriations, the Marine Corps must complete a ``by
the book'' OPEVAL of the full-up ATARS system. If the ongoing
operational assessment tests and the OPEVAL indicate that the system
does not meet the stated requirements, the Committee requires that it be
immediately notified of the shortfalls and the Marine Corps plan for the
future of ATARS.
The Committee notes that in fiscal year 1999, the Navy's budget
justification material indicated that it intended to use 1999 funds to
finance the ATARS OPEVAL and initiation of Full Rate Production.
Congress agreed and this became the ``Congressionally approved''
program. The Committee understands that the Navy now desires to not use
1999 appropriations to initiate Full Rate Production, but intends to
waive acquisition regulations and move to a Low Rate Initial Production
(LRIP) III decision prior to completion of the OPEVAL. With the
execution of the LRIP III, the Navy will have committed, through the
LRIP process, to procure half of the ATARS inventory objective. The
Committee requests that prior to making such a decision, the Secretary
of the Navy submit to the Committee a revised acquisition plan for
ATARS. Additionally, the Secretary of the Navy should submit a letter to
the Committee that addresses the Navy's desire to alter the fiscal year
1999 Congressionally approved program and request approval to use
appropriated funds for a similar, although alternative, purpose.
Additionally, the Committee directs that the Marine Corps complete
and submit to the Committee by November 1, 1999, a report that addresses
its future plans for meeting reconnaissance requirements. This ``road
map'' of tactical reconnaissance must address the Marine Corps plan to
acquire the Navy's Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) system when it
successfully completes evaluation and testing and becomes available for
procurement.
tactical airborne reconnaissance pod system--completely digital
(tarps-cd)
The Committee understands that TARPS(CD) is the proof of concept for
the next generation of tactical reconnaissance systems: the Shared
Airborne Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP). TARPS(CD) is employing off the
shelf technology similar to the more capable technology being developed
for the SHARP system. The Committee fully supports this approach and the
rapid prototyping process that the Navy, particularly the Naval Research
Lab, is promoting with SHARP.
The Committee also supports the Navy's decision to deploy TARPS(CD)
on board the USS John F. Kennedy to support peacekeeping operations in
the Balkans region. The opportunity now presents itself for additional
limited operational experience with TARPS(CD) and through that
experience, to assist with the design and risk mitigation for SHARP. The
operational lessons learned from a limited, interim deployment of
TARPS(CD) therefore would have a two-fold effect: preparing operational
forces to more quickly integrate the capability increases of SHARP into
their tactics and also allowing that experience to assist the final
design of the SHARP system to ensure it meets fleet operational
requirements.
Therefore, the Committee adds $25,000,000 only to procure and test
additional TARPS(CD) systems. These additional systems will provide for
continued development in support of the rapid prototyping process for
SHARP, as well as spares for the system deployed with the USS John F.
Kennedy.
RESCISSIONS
The Committee recommends rescissions of $62,500,000 from several
fiscal year 1999 Aircraft Procurement, Navy programs. These include:
$41,500,000 in Common Ground Equipment due to the cancellation of the
jet start unit project; $11,000,000 in AV 8B due to cancellation of the
aircraft life extension program; and $10,000,000 due to contract savings
resulting from E 2C multiyear procurement.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2000.
Offset Folio 155 Insert Here
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,211,419,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,357,400,000
Committee recommendation 1,334,800,000
Change from budget request -22,600,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic
and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated
support equipment, and modification on in-service missiles, torpedoes,
and guns.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
Standard missile 198,867 155,267 -43,600
Aerial Targets 21,177 51,177 +30,000
Penguin missiles 0 10,000 10,000
Tomahawk 50,894 50,894 0
Note: Funds provided only to convert Anti-Ship Tomahawks to the block III C variant.
JSOW
The Navy requested $154,913,000 for JSOW. The Committee recommends
$135,913,000, a net decrease of $19,000,000. This amount includes a
decrease of $39,300,000 for the anti-armor JSOW variant and an increase
of $20,300,000 for the baseline JSOW variant. As discussed in the Air
Force section of this report, the Committee recommends deferring
production of the anti-armor variant of the JSOW pending resolution of
technical problems with the improved BLU 108 submunition and pending
resolution of targeting problems. In order to minimize disruption to the
JSOW production flow, the Committee recommends converting the proposed
BLU 108 weapons to baseline weapons resulting in a savings of
$19,000,000. The Committee expects the Navy to include separate budget
exhibits for each variant of JSOW in future budget submissions.
RESCISSIONS
The Committee recommends a rescission of $8,000,000 from fiscal year
1999 Weapons Procurement, Navy due to delay in procurement of the
Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy resulting from deficiencies
revealed in recent operational testing.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2000.
Offset Folio 157 Insert Here
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $484,203,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 484,900,000
Committee recommendation 537,600,000
Change from budget request +52,700,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition
modernization, and ammunition related material for the Navy and Marine
Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Air Expendable Countermeasure 34,259 39,259 +5,000
5.56MM, All Types 12,958 21,958 +9,000
7.62MM, All Types 7 5,007 +5,000
40MM, All Types 11,247 12,547 +1,300
60MM, All Types 12,433 16,433 +4,000
25MM, All Types 3,194 11,394 +8,200
Demolition Munitions, All Types 14,733 21,933 +7,200
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
50 Caliber 16,364 18,364 +2,000
Grenades, All Types 2,270 4,270 +2,000
Rockets, All Types 11,030 20,030 +9,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset folios 065 to insert here
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $6,035,752,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 6,678,454,000
Committee recommendation 6,656,554,000
Change from budget request -21,900,000
This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new ships
and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including hull,
mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and
missile launching systems, and communication systems
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Project Level Changes
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from Request
CVN Refueling Overhauls (AP-CY) 345,565 323,665 -21,900
POST DELIVERY TEST AND TRIALS
The Committee directs that in future budgets, the costs associated
with post delivery test and trials conducted during the post delivery
period for all fiscal year 1997 and subsequent ships be included in the
subdivision of funds appropriated in the fiscal year in which the test
and trials occur.
RESCISSIONS
The Committee recommends rescissions of $46,400,000 from several
fiscal year 1999 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy programs. These
include: $32,400,000 in the Virginia class submarine due to reduction in
shipyard labor and overhead rates resulting from the multi-mission
modification to SSN 23; $11,400,000 due to contract savings in the CVN
69 CVN refueling advance planning contract; and $2,600,000 due to
contract savings in nuclear propulsion components for the Virginia class
submarine.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2000.
Offset folios 161 to insert here
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $4,072,662,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 4,100,091,000
Committee recommendation 4,252,191,000
Change from budget request +152,100,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major
equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and
torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest electronic sensors for
updating naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and spare parts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Undersea Warfare Support Equipment 2,605 11,205 +8,600
SATCOM ship Terminals (Space) 237,722 247,722 +10,000
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
Other Navigation Equipment 67,516 87,516 +20,000
Note: CADRT funds are only to begin low rate initial production.
Pollution Control Equipment 113,506 116,506 +3,000
Strategic Platform Support Equipment 6,070 21,070 +15,000
Note: For procurement of submarine workstations, to include but not be limited to the navigation system workstation, OJ 172, and the data exchange auxilliary console, on SSN 688 and Trident class submarines.
Minesweeping Equipment 16,302 20,802 +4,500
Dyad mine countermeasures system 0 +4,500
Items Less Than $5.0M 126,133 154,533 +28,400
Radar Support 0 22,300 +22,300
Surface Sonar Support Equipment 0 5,000 +5,000
Undersea Warfare Support Equipment 2,605 11,205 +8,600
Note: Only for procurement of surface ship enhanced capability torpedo defense systems for large deck ships and LEAD countermeasure units for all ships to include upgraded torpedo countermeasure winch and tow capability for littoral operations.
Sonar Support Equipment 0 3,000 +3,000
C 3 Countermeasures 0 10,000 +10,000
Shipboard IW Exploit 48,031 21,531 -26,500
Common High Bandwidth Data Link 40,083 31,283 -8,800
Navy Tactical Data System 0 25,000 +25,000
Note: To install Wintel-based shipboard display emulator computers workstations, and displays in LHA 1, LHA 3, and LHA 5 ships. 0 +5,000
Other Training Equipment 44,229 54,229 +10,000
TADIX B 6,248 23,548 +17,300
Naval Space Surveillance System 6,634 7,834 +1,200
GCCS M Equipment Tatical/Mobile 7,077 17,077 +10,000
RADIAC 7,778 4,278 -3,500
Items Less Than $5.0M 5,206 10,206 +5,000
Submarine Communication Equipment 85,368 53,268 -32,100
SATCOM Ship Terminals (Space) 237,722 247,722 +10,000
Note: Includes procurement/installation of mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminals on MCM and MHC ships, and mini-DAMA medium data rate upgrades for DDGs, SSN 688s, MHCs, MCMs, and submarine shore sites.
JEDMICS 0 17,000 +17,000
Note: Only for the continued procurement and integration of the same security solution implemented in 1999. 0 +5,000
Naval Shore Communications 114,339 92,439 -21,900
Passive Sonobuoys (non-Beam forming) 15,933 23,933 +8,000
AN/SSQ 57 (Special purpose) 0 1,000 +1,000
AN/SSQ 62 (DICASS) 17,111 17,711 +600
AN/SSQ 101 (ADAR) 12,773 18,773 +6,000
Aviation Life Support 17,053 23,053 +6,000
Aegis Support Equipment 86,668 93,668 +7,000
Command Support Equipment 14,471 16,471 +2,000
Pollution Control Equipment
The Committee directs the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness of Navy's pollution control equipment program for
upgrading equipment on Navy ships.
RESCISSIONS
The Committee recommends rescissions of $22,700,000 from several
Other Procurement, Navy programs. This includes $6,384,000 in fiscal
year 1998 and $8,953,000 in fiscal year 1999 due to the recent program
slip in the Combat Survivor Evader Radio; $5,500,000 in fiscal year 1999
for FFG upgrades; and $1,900,000 in fiscal year 1999 due to a reduction
in quantity in the MK XII IFF digital interrogator systems.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2000.
Offset folios 165 to 169 insert here
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $874,216,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,137,220,000
Committee recommendation 1,333,120,000
Change from budget request +195,900,000
This appropriation provides the Marine Corps with funds for
procurement, delivery and modification of missiles, armament,
communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and various
support equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Night Vision Equipment 9,032 17,532 +8,500
Material Handling Equipment 50,010 66,510 +16,500
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousand of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Modification Kits (TRKD Veh) 22,853 83,353 +60,500
Comm Switching and Control Systems 65,125 98,025 +32,900
(Note: Further details are provided in the Information Technology section of this report)
Comm and Elec Infrastructure Support 81,770 139,070 +57,300
(Note: Further details are provided in the Information Technology section of this report).
Mod Kits MAGTF C41 13,821 18,821 +5,000
Fire Support System 0 6,000 +6,000
Command Support Equipment 0 2,000 +2,000
Field Medical Equipment 2,445 7,645 +5,200
Modification Kits 0 2,000 +2,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset folios 171 to 173 insert here
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $8,095,507,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 9,302,086,000
Committee recommendation 8,298,313,000
Change from budget request -1,003,773,000
This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and for
modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance
operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and other
support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment and industrial
facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of
flight training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide
for more economical training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request
in accordance with House authorization action.
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
16 Post Production Support 30,010 50,010 +20,000
C 17 Modifications 95,543 93,543 -2,100
Project Level Changes
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
C 17 (MYP) 3,080,147 2,671,047 -409,100
C 17 (MYP) (AP CY) 304,900 301,700 -3,200
JPATS 88,232 106,332 +18,100
V 22 OSPREY 29,203 16,736 -12,467
Operational Support Aircraft 0 63,000 +63,000
TARGET DRONES 36,152 31,652 -4,500
B 1B 130,389 147,039 +16,650
Predator UAV 38,003 58,003 +20,000
A 10 24,360 29,360 +5,000
16 249,536 295,536 +46,000
KC 10A (ATCA) 53,366 29,757 -23,609
C 130 207,646 165,546 -42,100
Transfer to RDTEAF for Avionics Modernization -38,600
DARP 138,436 302,936 +164,500
3 124,061 94,561 -29,500
4 19,985 9,985 -10,000
PASSENGER SAFETY MODIFICATIONS 0 75,000 +75,000
COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 171,369 185,897 +14,528
B 2A 106,882 75,482 -31,400
WAR CONSUMABLES 29,282 54,282 +25,000
f 22
The Committee recommendation with respect to F 22 is discussed
elsewhere in this report.
f 15
The Committee recommendation includes $440,000,000 to procure 8 F 15E
aircraft. The budget proposed no funding for new F 15 production. The F
15E is a multi-role fighter with both robust air-to-air and
air-to-ground capabilities, and was a key player in Operation Allied
Force because of its ability to carry a wide range of precision guided
munitions. The F 15E is the only Air Force all-weather deep interdiction
aircraft capable of employing the entire range of available or
programmed precision guided munitions including laser guided bombs, AGM
130, JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, and WCMD. The procurement of these aircraft will
not only significantly enhance warfighting capability, but also, in view
of the Committee's recommendation regarding a production ``pause'' on
the F 22, it will preserve fighter modernization options pending
delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter.
f 16
The Air Force requested $252,610,000 for 10 F 16 aircraft. The
Committee recommends $350,610,000, a net increase of $98,000,000, for a
total of 15 F 16s. (This amount includes a $17,000,000 reduction for
excess engineering change orders and nonrecurring engineering funding.
The Committee notes that given the maturity of the F 16 program, there
should be few changes demanding such funding.)
The Air Force budget this year included 10 F 16s in fiscal year 2000
and a total of 30 F 16s over the next 4 years, none of which were
programmed prior to submission of the fiscal years 2000 2005 defense
program. The Air Force has made this adjustment in light of the need to
bolster the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) mission area, as
well to address various inventory and unit shortfalls and modernization
needs by cascading active F 16s to the Air National Guard and Reserves.
The Committee agrees with the Air Force plan and notes that that
Operation Allied Force has further highlighted the urgent need for
additional SEAD assets, and the limitations of those early model F 16s
which remain fielded largely in Guard and Reserve units. Accordingly,
the Committee believes the Air Force F 16 procurement plan could be
accelerated through purchase of additional aircraft in fiscal year 2000
and has included an additional $115,000,000 over the budget request to
procure an additional 5 F 16 Block 50 aircraft. The Committee has also
provided an additional $24,000,000 in F 16 advance procurement to allow
follow-on buys to be accelerated into fiscal year 2001.
c 130j
The Air force requested $30,618,000 for the C 130J program. The
Committee recommends $17,718,000, a reduction of $17,718,000
representing a transfer of Interim Contractor Support to the Operations
and Maintenance account as discussed elsewhere in this report.
The Committee is concerned with the current Air Force C 130J
acquisition plan. The Air Mobility Command (AMC) has clearly indicated
its requirement for 150 new production C 130J aircraft beyond those
already purchased. In fact, the Committee notes AMC has just issued
preliminary basing plans for the aircraft. Yet the Air Force budget does
not include funding for these aircraft until fiscal year 2002, and under
the preliminary AMC fielding plan these assets will not begin arriving
at active duty units until 2006. Moreover, an Air Force failure to
budget for any C 130Js for two years could cause significant disruption
to the existing production program. As stated throughout this report,
this is yet another example of a well documented CINC operational
requirement which is being deferred or not funded (a need which in this
case is further buttressed by production line concerns).
As discussed earlier in this report, to ameliorate this disruption
and to satisfy an even more urgent Marine Corps requirement, the
Committee has recommended eight KC 130J aircraft for the U.S. Marine
Corps. Given its own tactical airlift needs, the Committee directs the
Air Force to accelerate the start of its buy of C 130J aircraft into
next year's budget (fiscal year 2001) which, along with continued Marine
Corps purchases, would minimize the inefficiencies in the current
production profile.
e 8c
The Air Force requested $280,265,000 for one E 8C Joint STARS
aircraft. The Committee recommends $468,465,000 for two Joint STARS
aircraft (a net increase over the budget of $188,200,000). This amount
includes a decrease of $13,000,000 budgeted for shutdown, a decrease of
$23,000,000 based on refurbishment cost savings of the newly acquired
German Boeing 707, and a $25,800,000 decrease associated with transfer
of Interim Contractor Support funding to the Air Force Operations and
Maintenance account.
The Committee recommendation also includes a $250,000,000 increase to
procure the fifteenth Joint STARS aircraft. The Committee notes the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved requirement for
Joint STARS is 19 aircraft. Though all 19 aircraft were budgeted several
years ago, the quantity was reduced largely in anticipation of sales to
NATO. NATO has decided not to buy Joint STARS, leaving a shortfall of
five aircraft. Operation Allied Force has only highlighted the
importance of Joint STARS, whose performance has been lauded by the
operational community. However, it has also reinforced the importance
of, and need to adequately budget for, a sufficient quantity of these
and other ``low-density, high demand'' assets. The Joint STARS
operational base of aircraft and crews is among the most stressed in the
U.S. military's force structure, and there are clearly not enough Joint
STARS programmed to support the current strategy of being able to
conduct two near-simultaneous major theater wars.
Given these concerns, the Committee believes it is prudent to procure
an additional aircraft in fiscal year 2000. The Committee further
strongly encourages the Air Force to fund the remaining four aircraft in
its fiscal year 2001 2006 budget plan.
C 135 Modifications
The Air Force requested $347,088,000 for C 135 Modifications. The
Committee recommends $552,988,000, a net increase of $205,900,000. This
amount includes a $2,100,000 decrease for Pacer Crag in accordance with
House authorization action, and a $208,000,000 increase to procure eight
additional KC 135E to R reengining conversions for the Air National
Guard.
Having a robust and capable aerial refueling capability is yet
another critical link in the overall ability of the American military to
conduct global operations and meet its worldwide security commitments.
This has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent years, be it through
humanitarian relief deployments or military operations abroad. Like the
need for intelligence support, or adequate air- and sealift, the aerial
refueling mission area is critical national military asset. Operation
Allied Force stressed that capability, both in terms of the sheer number
of aerial refueling platforms and aircrews needed to support that air
campaign, and the adjustments, workarounds and disruptions to other U.S.
global military activities that resulted from the diversion of assets to
EUCOM's area of operation.
At present, the bulk of the nation's aerial refueling capability
resides in the KC 135 tanker fleet, which was largely acquired during
the 1950's and 1960's. Despite its age, this fleet has been slowly
modernized over the last fifteen years, largely as a result of funds
added by the Congress for the KC 135E to R engine conversion program.
Each aircraft so upgraded has a 25 percent increase in fuel offload
capability, a 35 percent reduction in time-to-climb, and a 23 percent
decrease in take-off distance, and also meets all Stage III noise and
emission standards. Combined, these improvements greatly enhance
operational utility and flexibility, as well as access to a wider number
and variety of airfields.
This re-engining program is a high priority for the Air Mobility
Command, and the Committee notes that there are still over 130 Air
National Guard tankers requiring this upgrade, many of which are over 40
years old. Yet the current Air Force outyear budget plan defers
additional conversions until fiscal year 2002. Given the operational
need and considerable utility of a more modern, robust and available
aerial refueling capability, the Committee recommends $208,000,000 over
the budget request for an additional eight KC 135E to R conversions.
15 Modifications
The Air Force requested $263,490,000 for F 15 modifications. The
Committee recommends $321,818,000, a net increase of $58,328,000. This
amount includes a decrease of $22,000,000 for excess funds budgeted for
APG 63 radar nonrecurring costs, a decrease of $8,672,000 for excess
funds in various modification programs as identified by GAO, an increase
of $21,000,000 for F 15C fighter datalinks for active combat coded
aircraft, an increase of $18,000,000 for fighter datalinks for the Air
National Guard, an increase of $25,000,000 for E-kit engine upgrades for
Air National Guard aircraft, and an increase of $25,000,000 for E-kit
engine upgrades for active component Air Force aircraft.
At relatively modest cost and in relatively short time, such upgrades
can provide considerably improved operational capabilities to the Air
Force's fighter inventory. For example, the fighter datalinks are
estimated to provide the F 15 with a 5-to-1 increase in kill ratio, and
are part of a capability which Air Force testimony to the Committee this
year described as ``the most significant increase in fighter avionics
since the introduction of the on-board radar.'' The funds added by the
Committee over the budget request will outfit all remaining active and
guard combat coded F 15 air superiority aircraft with this vital
capability. The E-kit engine upgrades recommended by the Committee
likewise provide significant benefits including 86 percent increased
availability, 46 percent reduction in engine flight hour costs,
increased throttle response and overall thrust, and an estimated
improvement in aircraft safety rates.
T 38 Modifications
The Air Force requested $94,487,000 for T 38 modifications. The
Committee recommends $43,987,000, a decrease of $50,500,000. The Air
Force request includes funding for the T 38 Avionics Update Program.
When structuring this program, the Air Force wisely adopted a ``fly
before buy'' acquisition strategy with operational testing scheduled to
complete prior to procurement. However, initial flight tests revealed
both hardware and software deficiencies which will delay completion of
operational testing approximately one year. The Committee believes it is
important to preserve the ``fly before buy'' acquisition strategy,
especially in light of the development problems recently experienced.
Therefore, the Committee recommends deferring the production program one
year to accommodate the delayed testing by rescinding fiscal year 1999
production funds and reducing fiscal year 2000 funds by $50,000,000. In
addition, the Committee recommends a reduction to the T 38 propulsion
upgrade by $500,000. The Committee fully supports this program, but
believes production funding in fiscal year 2000 is premature.
Offset folios 180 to 182 insert here
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $2,069,827,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,359,608,000
Committee recommendation 2,329,510,000
Change from budget request -30,098,000
This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and
checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of
in-service missiles, and initial spares for missile systems. It also
provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones,
associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial
facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program support.
MINUTEMAN III GUIDANCE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
For the past several years, the Air Force has reduced the budget for
the Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) as a billpayer for
other Service priorities. The Committee is concerned about how these
actions are impacting the projected reliability of the Minuteman III
weapon system. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
to provide a report separately detailing the inventory and the weapon
system reliability (required and projected) of each Minuteman III
variant (unmodified missiles, missiles modified with GRP only, and
missiles modified with GRP and Propulsion Replacement Program) by year
for fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2010. The Committee further
directs that this report be provided to the congressional defense
committees no later than September 1, 1999.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request
in accordance with House authorization action.
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
AGM 65 Maverick 2,800 12,800 +10,000
Spaceborne equipment 9,594 4,594 -5,000
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from requests
AMRAAM 97,279 190,279 +93,000
MM III Modifications 242,960 277,960 +35,000
Global Positioning (Space) 139,049 103,349 -35,700
Global Positioning (Space) (AP CY) 31,798 0 -31,798
NUDET Detection System 11,375 1,575 -9,800
DEF Meteorological SAT Prog (Space) 38,223 34,223 -4,000
Defense Support Programs (Space) 111,609 106,609 -5,000
Evolved Expendable Launch Veh (Space) 70,812 66,812 -4,000
MILSTAR 0 150,000 +150,000
JSOW
The Air Force request includes $79,981,000 for procurement of JSOW
precision guided munitions. The Committee recommends $60,981,000, a net
decrease of $19,000,000 which includes a decrease of $39,300,000 for BLU
108 JSOW and an increase of $20,300,000 for baseline JSOW. The BLU 108
is designed to attack armored vehicles, however, Air Force testimony
provided to the Committee states that the technology which would allow
aircraft to target these vehicles is years away. Air Force testimony
further states that the technology required to transfer targeting data
from a third party such as JSTARS is also years away. Without realtime
targeting, the Air Force and Navy must rely on prior intelligence to
develop pre-planned JSOW missions. However, predicting the precise
location of vehicles 24 to 48 hours in advance (in order to incorporate
the missions into the theater's Air Tasking Order) is extremely
difficult.
The Committee further notes that recently identified delays in the
improved BLU 108 submunition have further degraded the performance of
the JSOW anti-armor variant. Because of the development delays in the
improved BLU 108, the Air Force and Navy propose to procure the JSOW
anti-armor variant using the older, less capable BLU 108 submunition.
The Committee believes it is more prudent to defer procurement of the
anti-armor variant until the Air Force and Navy can resolve the
targeting issues and complete development on the improved BLU 108
submunition. In order to minimize disruption to the JSOW production
flow, the Committee recommends converting the proposed BLU 108 weapons
to baseline weapons resulting in a savings of $19,000,000.
TITAN
The Air Force budget for Titan assumes approval of a Special
Termination Cost Clause which waives the requirement to budget for
termination liability. The Committee notes that the Air Force has not
yet submitted an STCC notification letter to the Congress. Nevertheless,
the Committee sees no reason to make an exception to the longstanding
requirement to budget for termination liability for this program. The
Committee directs the Air Force to fully fund the Titan contract
including all termination liability.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
OFFSET FOLIOS 186 INSERT HERE
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $379,425,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 419,537,000
Committee recommendation 481,837,000
Change from budget request +62,300,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition,
modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for
the Air Force.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
Practice Bombs 24,325 24,325 (6000)
Sensor Fuzed Weapon 61,334 73,634 +12,300
Joint Direct Attack Munition 125,605 175,605 +50,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
OFFSET FOLIOS 188 INSERT HERE
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $6,960,483,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 7,085,177,000
Committee recommendation 6,964,227,000
Change from budget request -120,950,000
This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and
equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are vehicles,
electronic and telecommunications systems for command and control of
operation forces, and ground support equipment for weapon systems and
supporting structure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request
in accordance with House authorization action.
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Mechanized Material Handling Equip 15,320 25,320 +10,000
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommendation Change from request
60K A/C Loader 81,163 69,863 -11,300
Intelligence Comm Equip 5,495 28,395 +22,900
Air Traffic Ctrl/Land Sys (Atcals) 887 5,887 +5,000
National Airspace System 54,394 45,394 -9,000
Theater Air Control Sys Improvement 37,917 23,417 -14,500
Automatic Data Processing Equip 71,173 84,173 +13,000
Theater Battle MGT C2 Sys 47,648 44,548 -3,100
Base Information Infrastructure 122,839 197,839 +75,000
Defense Message System (DMS) 14,025 4,125 -9,900
NAVSTAR GPS Space 14,614 13,314 -1,300
AF Satellite Control Network Space 33,591 17,591 -16,000
Eastern/Western Range I&M Space 83,410 107,910 +24,500
MILSATCOM Space 46,257 37,757 -8,500
Radio Equipment 16,685 20,435 +3,750
Comm Elect Mods 56,195 53,995 -2,200
Base/ALC Calibration Package 10,157 7,557 -2,600
Night Vision Goggles 2,800 4,800 +2,000
Items Less Than $5.0M 3,559 6,559 +3,000
Base Procured Equipment 14,035 25,035 +11,000
Items Less than $5.0M 22,500 21,500 -1,000
Intelligence Production Activity 40,047 16,247 -23,800
Tech Surv Countermeasures EQ 2,976 3,976 +1,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
OFFSET FOLIOS 191 TO 193 INSERT HERE
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,944,833,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,128,967,000
Committee recommendation 2,286,368,000
Change from budget request +157,401,000
This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide activities of
the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
Major Equipment, OSD 88,976 166,976 +78,000
Major Equipment, DLA
Defense Support Activities 47,455 56,455 +9,000
Automatic Document Conversion System 0 12,500 +12,500
Special Operations Command
SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades 41,233 83,233 +42,000
Advanced Seal Delivery Sys 21,213 7,400 -13,813
SOF Intelligence Systems 19,154 21,154 +2,000
SOF Small Arms and Weapons 23,355 30,355 +7,000
Chemical/Biological Defense: 124,612 125,612 +1,000
M42 protective mask reclamation +1,000
Human Resources Enterprise Strategy 0 7,500 7,500
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE RESOURCE CENTERS
The Committee has long supported the Electronic Commerce Resource
Center (ECRC) program as a means to streamline acquisition procedures
and reduce acquisition costs, and has provided a total of $39,491,000 to
continue this program for FY 2000. The ECRC program continues to provide
valuable service to small- and medium-sized businesses to move to
paperless electronic contracting when conducting business affairs with
the Department of Defense. The Committee believes it is important to
ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses are not placed at further
competitive disadvantages as the Department rapidly moves to more
sophisticated methods of electronic commerce as part of its acquisition
reform strategy.
The Committee is disappointed that the Department has requested
significantly less funding for this program in FY 2000 than was
requested in FY 1999 with no apparent justification for this decrease
provided in the budget submission. In addition, the Committee is
disturbed to learn that ECRC program funds appropriated for FY 1999 have
not been released and in fact have been used for other purposes or for
activities of lower value, including reimbursement of administrative
support contractors. The Committee has recommended bill language to
ensure that ECRC funds are used as intended by the Congress. The
Committee is also aware that the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition)
finally has chartered a panel to review this program pursuant to the
direction of this Committee two years ago. The Committee intends that
this review be a constructive effort to retool and expand the ECRC
program to become a more integral part of the Department's broader
paperless contracting strategy. This should include a strategy to spin
off those centers that become self-sustaining, consolidate overlapping
centers, create new centers, and develop program performance measures.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
Information on the Automated Document Conversion and Human Resources
Enterprise Strategy programs can be found in the Information Technology
section of this report.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Additional recommendations by the Committee are described in the
classified annex accompanying this report.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 196 to 197 Insert here
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $352,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 0
Committee recommendation 130,000,000
Change from budget request +130,000,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical
aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
In all accounts throughout the bill, the Committee recommends a total
of $2,485,300,000 for procurement of National Guard and Reserve
equipment, a net increase of $796,400,000 above the budget request.
The Committee believes that the Chiefs of the Reserve and National
Guard components should exercise control of modernization funds provided
in Procurement, National Guard and Reserve Equipment account, and
directs that they provide a separate submission of a detailed assessment
of their modernization requirements and priorities to the congressional
defense committees. The Committee expects the component commanders to
give priority consideration for funding in this appropriation of the
following items: CH 47 helicopters, AN/PEQ 2A TPIALs and AN/PAQ 4C
infrared aiming lights, master crane aircraft component hoisting
systems, aluminum mesh gas tank liners for C 130 aircraft and Army
ground vehicles, A/B FIST 21 training systems, CH 60S combat search and
rescue kits, super scooper aircraft, modular airborne fire fighting
systems, F 16 ALR 56M radar warning receivers, deployable rapid assembly
shelters, C 40A aircraft, C 22 replacement aircraft, secure
communications and data systems, CH 60 helicopters, M270A1 long-range
surveillance launchers, M106A Paladin self-propelled howitzer/M1992A2
FAASV ammunition carrier, AN/AVR 2A(V) laser detecting sets, ALQ 184(V)9
electronic countermeasure pods, extended cold weather clothing systems,
HEMTT trucks, multi-role bridge companies, medium tactical wreckers,
rough terrain container cranes, CH 47 cargo compartment expanded range
fuel systems, C 38A aircraft, C 17 communications suite upgrades, mobile
radar approach control, internal crashworthy fuel cells, DFIRST, F/A 18
series mods, UH 60 Q kits, MLRS launchers, meterological measuring
systems, improved target simulators, and C 17 maintenance training
systems.
Fire-Fighting
The Committee is aware that National Guard Units in California and
Florida are providing valuable assistance to federal, state, and local
firefighters whose states have been ravaged by an unusually large number
of wildfires. The Committee is also aware that the current inventory of
aircraft available to assist in these efforts is inadequate and that
there are a number of platforms and systems available for lease or
purchase which could improve the National Guard's fire-fighting
capabilities dramatically. The Committee has included a general
provision (Section 8112) providing $20,000,000 to the Army National
Guard to begin to improve fire-fighting capabilities and directs the
National Guard Bureau to provide a report to the Committee examining the
various options available for this mission prior to the expenditure of
any of these funds.
Support to non-profit Agencies
The Committee is aware that National Guard units throughout the
United States provide assistance to non-profit organizations including
the transportation and lending of equipment as goodwill in their
community relations programs. One such example is the cooperative
relationship between the Alabama Sports Festival and the Alabama Army
National Guard. The Committee is concerned that the Department of
Defense is interfering with these relationships by impeding the ability
of National Guard units to assist local non-profit organizations and
directs the Secretary of Defense to review current policy to determine
if it has become overly restrictive.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2000:
Offset Folios 200 to Insert here
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation 0
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 0
Committee recommendation $5,000,000
Change from request +5,000,000
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for microwave power tubes.
The Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, submitted by the
Secretary of Defense in February 1999, stated that the most pressing
concern for the microwave power tube industry was the difficulty in
obtaining reliable suppliers of various critical materials and
components. Microwave power tubes generate and amplify microwave energy
for applications in radar, electronic warfare, and telecommunications
systems. DOD currently uses over 270 different types of operating
systems employing over 180,000 microwave tubes. Microwave power tubes
will be used in these and similar applications for at least the next two
to three decades since there are no foreseeable replacement
technologies. The additional funding will provide DOD assured access to
affordable microwave tubes by incentivizing the insertion of consistent,
quality-driven improvements in the tube industry's supplier chain.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The Department requested $16,216,119,000 for Information Technology.
The Committee recommends $16,517,219,000, an increase of $301,100,000 as
explained below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Operation and Maintenance, Army:
500
-16,552
6,500
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
4,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
3,500
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
-41,200
8,000
-2,000
12,500
7,500
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
2,500
15,000
Other Procurement, Army:
16,552
5,000
-18,100
15,000
15,000
8,000
Other Procurement, Navy:
12,000
5,000
Procurement, Marine Corps:
32,900
57,300
Other Procurement, Air Force:
10,000
45,000
10,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
12,500
7,500
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
2,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:
10,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:
9,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide:
5,000
41,200
Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem
In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, the Congress
directed the Department to undertake an extensive program of system
tests, functional end-to-end tests and warfighting operational
evaluations to ensure the Department's readiness to deal with the Year
2000 computer problem. In the subsequent Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, the Congress provided
$1,100,000,000 in emergency appropriations to support the testing and
remediation efforts.
Although it was initially difficult to get the Department to focus on
the Year 2000 computer problem, the Committee is pleased with the
progress the Department has made since last Fall. The direct
intervention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense proved critical to
focusing the attention of the services, regional commanders and
functional managers on this important issue and ensuring the sustained
level of effort needed to address this problem. The numerous audit
reports prepared by the Department of Defense Inspector General were
very effective in focusing the attention of individual commanders on
this problem and in keeping the reporting system honest. In addition,
the Committee appreciates the Department's openness and, in particular,
its willingness to include representatives from several congressional
committees in its oversight process.
This summer, the Department is entering the most critical phase of
the process, conducting tests to evaluate multiple computer systems
working together as part of ``end-to-end'' testing for different
functional capabilities. With little time remaining for the Department
to conduct hundreds of related end-to-end test events it is critical
that these events and their evaluations be well planned and well
managed. The Committee agrees with the recommendations of the recent
General Accounting Office report and encourages the Department to
establish a strong quality assurance program for its testing efforts.
Year 2000 (Y2K) Lessons Learned
There have been many positive outcomes to dealing with the Y2K
computer problem. The Department has developed a series of databases,
tests, and exercises that are readily applicable to information
assurance. The Department, for instance, has created a database listing
its information technology systems, examined the interfaces between
systems, outlined a ``thin line'' series of systems that have to work to
complete particular warfighting missions, and has conducted operational
evaluations of how regional commanders would continue to fight even if
certain key systems failed.
One of the unfortunate lessons of the Y2K process, however, was the
inability of the Department's Chief Information Officer (CIO) to get the
services and agencies to concentrate on this problem earlier. With the
exception of a few activities (the White Sands Missile Range in New
Mexico deserves particular mention for its early and aggressive Y2K
remediation effort), the Department did not become fully engaged until
the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense made it a
continued priority. The Committee is concerned that similar problems
will occur in addressing the Department's information assurance problem.
The Committee believes that the problems the Department encountered
and the steps it has taken to deal with the Y2K problem are directly
related to addressing the problem of information assurance. For example,
maintaining the database of information technology systems, with key
information about the system interfaces, is a prerequisite to any
information assurance effort. To this end, the Committee has included a
general provision (Section 8125) requiring all information technology
systems to register with the CIO by March 31, 2000 and to provide
additional information as the Secretary of Defense may require. The
Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 15, 2000 on the lessons
learned from Y2K with particular emphasis on what additional programs
should be continued and what lessons can be applied to information
assurance.
INADEQUATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT
The Committee is disappointed with the Department's current level of
oversight of its information technology systems. In the words of the
Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG), information technology
projects ``have tended to overrun budgets, slip schedules, evade data
standardization and interoperability requirements, and shortchange user
needs''. The DoD IG rates this as one of the Department's top ten most
serious management problems. Likewise, the General Accounting Office has
consistently designated the Department's information technology project
management as a high risk area.
Despite these concerns, the senior group responsible for reviewing
and approving information technology investments (called the IT OIPT)
has not even met in over a year. Those systems that are reviewed are
often approved despite lacking key documentation. For example, at least
seven programs totaling $780,000,000 are moving forward despite lacking
an Acquisition Program Baseline, a critical tool for program management.
Others have gone forward without being able to demonstrate the costs and
benefits of the investment. In hearings, when the Committee has
requested lists of systems terminated or significantly restructured as
part of the Department's oversight process, the answers have
consistently indicated that this rarely if ever happens. In fact, an
investigation of the systems terminated by the Office of the Secretary
of Defense reveals that the majority of them were canceled because their
sponsoring organization was abolished, not because of any problems with
the system.
DEFENSE JOINT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
A recent example of these problems is the Defense Joint Accounting
System (DJAS), currently under development. Despite the importance of
developing joint systems, the Department has allowed the Air Force and
the Navy to opt out of this program and to develop and modernize their
own distinct systems. Thus, this `joint' system will be fielded only to
the Army and a few defense-wide activities. After its initial Milestone
O approval, the timeline for completing the DJAS software development
effort expanded from 16 months to six or more years, the benefits
declined from $322,000,000 to $204,000,000 and are now characterized as
``productivity savings'', whereas before they were real cost savings. In
November, the DoD IG issued a draft report warning that DJAS had not
completed the steps required under the program management process to be
prepared for a Milestone I review. In March, the Office of Program
Analysis and Evaluation issued similar warnings about the dramatic
change in the programs scope, cost and duration. Despite these serious
concerns, the Department not only issued Milestone I approval, but also
Milestone II approval at the same time, all without having a meeting of
the IT OIPT to review the system. The Committee rejects this approval as
inconsistent with the intent of the Information Technology oversight
process and the Clinger-Cohen Act. Further, the Committee directs that
the DoD IG update and complete their audit of DJAS with particular
emphasis on determining if DJAS meets the standards for Milestone I or
Milestone II approval and the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act. In
addition, following the Inspector General's report, the Committee
directs the Department to conduct a proper Milestone I review of this
system and to provide a report to the congressional defense committees
consistent with the requirements of general provision Section 8125 of
this bill.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT--COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The basic policies and procedures necessary for sound oversight and
program management are clearly outlined in the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996. The Committee believes that a strong Chief Information Officer,
with visibility over the programs and a commitment to implementing the
Clinger-Cohen Act, is the best approach to correcting the Department's
problem. The Committee therefore supports the Department's request for a
$14,710,000 increase in the ASD(C3I)/CIO operation and maintenance
budget specifically for improving information technology oversight and
for compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act and directs that no reductions
be taken against this account.
Furthermore, the Committee has included a new general provision
(Section 8125) that prohibits any information technology system from
receiving Milestone I, Milestone II, or Milestone III approval until the
Chief Information Officer certifies in writing to the congressional
defense committees that the system is in compliance with the provisions
of the Clinger-Cohen Act. The Committee provides this funding and this
additional authority in the expectation that they will be used to
instill discipline into the process. The Committee is prepared to make
an activity's or a program's compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act a
condition of future funding.
In addition, the Committee directs the Department to take the
following steps and except where otherwise noted, to provide a report on
its progress to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2000.
1. Ensure that program managers for all major information technology
investments are adequately trained and provide to the congressional
defense committees a status report on the number of program managers who
meet the training requirements and the plans to train those who do not
meet the requirements.
2. Establish separate program elements for each major information
technology system.
3. Review how information technology infrastructure is acquired and
consolidate infrastructure resources into infrastructure specific
accounts, if appropriate.
4. Establish procedures to ensure infrastructure efforts, such as the
Metropolitan Area Networks, are consistent with Department policy and
architecture.
5. Establish clear guidance for how economic analyses should be done
and ensure that they are implemented uniformly.
6. Periodically, conduct post-implementation reviews to determine if
programs are achieving the anticipated benefits.
7. Resolve the discrepancies between how the Acquisition Program
Baselines, the Economic Analysis, and the IT 42s report costs and
benefits to ensure consistency in reporting and analysis.
8. Include in the 300b reports the original baseline costs and
benefits, any revised baseline costs and benefit projections as well as
the actual costs and benefits achieved.
9. Examine the Milestone review process for information technology to
determine if changes are needed to reflect the front loaded costs of
software development.
10. Complete a coordinated, final 1999 DOD Information Technology
strategic plan and the incorporated CIO Action Plan and provide to the
congressional defense committees no late than September 1, 1999. In
addition, the Department should provide a detailed report on the
progress made thus far toward achieving the established priorities as
outlined in the Action Plan.
Financial Management Regulations
In last year's report this Committee highlighted its concern that the
Department's use of operation and maintenance funds to develop and
modernize its information technology systems was inconsistent with the
Financial Management Regulations and directed the Department to correct
this in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission. The Department failed to
do so. The Committee is concerned the continuation of this practice
undermines the most basic distinction between appropriations and puts
the Department in jeopardy of committing anti-deficiency violations.
Consistent with last year's report the Committee directs the Department
to submit prior approval reprogrammings as necessary to bring its
programs into compliance. The Committee, however, remains prepared to
work with the Department to realign funding between appropriation
accounts prior to the completion of the fiscal year 2000 defense
appropriations bill in order to bring the Department into compliance
with the least disruption.
Standard Procurement System
The Committee is concerned about the ability of the Standard
Procurement System to meet the requirements of its users. The Committee
recommends that the Chief Information Officer delay the fielding of the
infrastructure for this system, until it confirms that the software
release version 5.0 satisfies the users requirements and until there is
resolution on the appropriateness of the Defense Logistic Agency's
contracting strategy.
ARMOR OFFICER DISTANCE LEARNING
The Committee recommends $500,000 only to continue developing
distance learning technologies for the Armor officer's courses at Fort
Knox.
POWER PROJECTION C4 INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends transfering $16,552,000 from the Operation
and Maintenance, Army account to the Other Procurements, Army account
(Local Area Network) to ensure that this program is funded in accordance
with fiscal law and the Department's Financial Management Regulations
for investments.
SUPERCOMPUTING WORK
The Committee recommends an increase of $6,500,000 only for the
Army's High Performance Computing Research efforts to enable the Army to
continue its supercomputing work.
ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRONICS TRAINING SERIES
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only for the Center for Navy
Education and Training (CNET), for the conversion of Navy training
manuals into an enhanced interactive electronic format suitable for
distance learning.
imds/remis
The Committee recommends $12,500,000 only for the Integrated
Maintenance Data Systems (IMDS) and the Reliability and Maintainability
Information System (REMIS). Of this amount, $9,000,000 is provided in
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force for accelerated
development and fielding in addition to improved training for IMDS. The
remaining $3,500,000 is provided in Operations and Maintenance, Air
Force to ensure continued support for the legacy REMIS system while the
necessary changes are being made to transition it to the IMDS system.
DIMHRS
The Committee supports section 8147 of the 1999 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act which directed the Department to establish a Defense
Reform Initiative (DRI) enterprise program for military manpower,
personnel, training and compensation programs using a revised Defense
Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS) as a baseline. The
Committee supports the President's request of $65,100,000 for the DIMHRS
program. In coordination with the Department and the Program Manager's
office, $41,200,000 has been realigned from Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-wide to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide
to be consistent with the Financial Management Regulations (FMR) and to
provide more flexibility in managing the program. The Committee directs
that this funding be used only to develop a system that is consistent
with the Human Resources Enterprise Strategy. The Committee recommends
$7,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide and $7,500,000 in
Procurement, Defense-wide only to support the development of the Human
Resources Enterprise Strategy and to continue program support and
infrastructure improvements at the Systems Executive Officer for
Manpower and Personnel (SEO/MP) and the Navy/DoD Information Technology
Center. The Committee directs the Department to provide these funds only
for and under the management and control of the Secretary of the Navy
and the SEO/MP. The Committee expects that these funds will be allocated
quickly and that the Department will coordinate the modernization of
individual service systems to ensure they are consistent with the Human
Resources Enterprise Strategy.
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU NATIONWIDE FIBER OPTICS NETWORK
The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the National Guard Bureau
only for feasibility study and engineering design of NDFON to provide a
dedicated fiber optic network to satisfy high volume telecommunications
traffic generated by the National Guard's distance learning initiative.
The Committee expects this initiative to determine if a fiber optic
network can satisfy the National Guard's requirements and save the
government money while being consistent with the Department's
information architecture.
NATIONAL GUARD DISTANCE LEARNING
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 in Other Procurement, Army
(ADPE) and $15,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
only for the continued fielding of the National Guard Distance Learning
Network Program.
MAINTENANCE AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 to Other
Procurement, Army (LogTech) only to allow the implementation of the
Maintenance Automated Identification Technology Initiative into the
Army's Blackhawk aviation units and at the Corpus Christi Army Depot.
global combat support system--army
The Committee recommends a reduction of $18,100,000 from Other
Procurement, Army (STAMIS) for the Global Combat Support System--Army.
This program was awarded a combined Milestone O/I/II without even a
cost--benefit analysis. The budget requests procurement funds to begin
fielding this system in fiscal year 2000 even though the first tier of
the program is not scheduled for a Milestone III review until fiscal
year 2001. The Committee is skeptical of this program's approval process
and opposes providing any funds for fielding until after it has achieved
Milestone III.
AMMUNITION AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends providing $15,000,000 in Other Procurement,
Army (ADPE) to be used only for the completion of the ongoing
Radio-Frequency Tagging/Intransit Visibility program at the remaining
Army ammunition depots and related ammunition supply points and ports.
national guard distance learning--courseware
The Committee recommends an increase of $8,000,000 in Other
Procurement, Army (ADPE) for the Washington State Army National Guard
only to develop online distance learning courses. This program is
important to meet unfunded Army National Guard training requirements and
to take full advantage of the Army National Guard Distance Learning
Network.
JOINT SYSTEMS EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for the Simulation Training
and Instrumentation Command and the Naval Air Warfare Center--Training
Systems Division for the development of an advanced distributed learning
(ADL) prototype.
SERVICE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE SHORTFALLS
In response to significant shortfalls identified in the service
unfunded requirements list, the Committee recommends providing an
additional $135,200,000. Of this amount, $32,900,000 is to upgrade the
Marine Corps base telecommunications infrastructure. Another $57,300,000
is to procure upgrades and replacement of information transfer
components located inside buildings on Marine Corps bases and stations
(to include Barstow, 29 Palms, Camp Pendleton, and Quantico). Finally
$45,000,000 is for upgrades to the Air Force Communications
Infrastructure.
SHARE IN SAVINGS
The Committee is interested in the potential benefits of the
share-in-savings pilot program as authorized in the Clinger-Cohen Act
and encourages the Department to present its recommendations to the
congressional defense committees on how to expand the use of this
program.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense research, development,
test and evaluation budget request totals $34,375,219,000. The
accompanying bill recommends $37,169,446,000. The total amount
recommended is an increase of $2,794,227,000 above the fiscal year 2000
budget estimate and is $412,796,000 above the total provided in fiscal
year 1999. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the
Committee's recommendations.
Offset Folio 210 Insert Here
Special Interest Items
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the
project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ``only for'' or
``only to'' in this report are Congressional interest items for the
purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these
items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a
revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically
addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest
whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report.
Classified Programs
Adjustments to classified programs are addressed in a classified
annex accompanying this report.
Technical Data
The Rand Corporation has been funded by many federal agencies to
create a common data base for government and private-sector research, in
order to prevent duplication of effort by individual researchers funded
under federal contracts. The Committee directs the Defense Department to
continue its support for and participation in the Rand RADIUS data base.
In addition, the Department shall ensure that access to defense
technical data is provided to Members of Congress and their staffs on
the same level as Defense Department employees. The Committee directs
the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense to report to the
congressional defense committees by September 1, 1999 on how these
objectives will be met.
Experimentation
The Committee directs that with each annual budget submission to
Congress, the Defense Department provide a report to the congressional
defense committees which identifies all funds for experimentation by
appropriation, fiscal year, P 1 or R 1 line item, and effort. The report
shall include Atlantic Command experimentation, other experimentation,
exercises with significant experimentation, wargaming, advanced concept
technology demonstrations, modelling and simulation, science and
technology exercises, CINC initiative funding, BMDO experiments, and
advanced technology demonstrations.
INFORMATION ASSURANCE AS PART OF INDEPENDENT OPERATIONAL TESTING
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that
information assurance testing is included in the Independent Operational
Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) of all DOD information technologies and
national security systems. The Committee further directs the Secretary
of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees no later
than February 1, 2000 on the Department's plans to implement the
directed testing.
SPECIAL TERMINATION COST CLAUSE
The Committee reaffirms the existing policy of providing the
congressional defense committees notification 30 days prior to
contractual implementation of a special termination cost clause. The
Committee further notes that the need to budget for termination
liability is a fundamental financial management principle and therefore
discourages, as a general principle, the use of special termination cost
clauses for either procurement or research and development programs.
JOINT MISSION PLANNING SYSTEM
The Committee is concerned that several DOD programs are continuing
to develop separate, ``stove-piped'' mission planning systems rather
than taking full advantage of the joint mission planning system
architecture currently under development by the Air Force and Navy. The
Committee notes that efforts are underway to develop new or upgraded
planning systems for Tomahawk, CALCM, and Air Mobility Command's
Advanced Computer Flight Plan System. The Committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to review these programs and make recommendations
on the merits, cost, and timetable of migrating these systems to the
joint mission planning system architecture. The Committee directs that
this report be provided to the congressional defense committees no later
than February 1, 2000.
UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS
The Committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has made
great strides at developing programs that foster small business
involvement in the material development and acquisition process. There
are a number of programs that provide opportunities for small businesses
to develop new technologies, and a number of management organizations
and mechanisms already in place in an effort to facilitate such
opportunities. The Committee also recognizes that the military
department scientific and technology communities also play an active
role in encouraging small business participation in development of
advanced technologies for military applications. The Committee
encourages such activities and urges that they be strengthened.
During the last decade, corporate mergers, acquisitions, and
downsizing have considerably reduced the number of competitors in
defense industry generally. While this may be desirable to the Defense
Department to reduce infrastructure costs and to minimize the
unnecessary duplication of capabilities, it may have the effect of
making it much more difficult for small businesses to gain access to
compete with large industrial organizations than just five years ago.
Further, the fiscal pressure on the Defense budget and major contractors
during the last few years have driven down both government funded and
corporate R&D investments in new technologies and processes. Technology
development itself, particularly in the areas of advanced communications
and information technologies, is evolving at such a rapid pace that it
is incompatible with DoD weapon system acquisition timelines. These
factors argue for an increased emphasis on technology development and
insertion by small businesses, which are more affordable and more able
to take risk and to innovate.
The Committee notes that the current Department of Defense system
relating to small businesses does well on the front-end of the process:
providing R&D funds to small businesses for development of new concepts,
approaches, and technologies. However, the Committee believes that the
present system could do better in terms of integrating small businesses
into mainstream weapons acquisition programs. The present system is
geared to providing incentives to DoD weapon system managers to use
small businesses, who however are under no real pressure to utilize or
foster small businesses in their programs for the long term. The
Committee recognizes that there are some unique defense areas--such as
nuclear reactor technology--that do not readily lend themselves to small
business approaches. On the other hand, the Committee believes that
program managers for major weapons system should be more prone to use
and grow small business participation in their programs that may span 20
and 30 year timeframes. The Committee is also concerned that the present
DoD system for small business innovative research is viewed as a ``tax''
by weapon system program managers. Once taxed, they may no longer feel
compelled to foster small business involvement within their programs as
the funds they would use to do this have been taken from them and given
to another organization to manage.
An area that may be ripe for increased small business participation
is DOD upgrades or modifications to major platforms which tend to be
done with incumbent contractors who have little real incentive to
innovate and little competitive pressure once awarded a contract. The
budget situation generally has caused DoD to forgo new system
development and to rely more on modifications, upgrades, and conversions
of existing systems. A main feature of such upgrades is the insertion of
new technologies, particularly those involving computing and
communications.
The Department of Defense reported to Congress in February 1999 on
its plan on processes that would facilitate the rapid transition of
successful SBIR projects to Phase III incorporation into DoD acquisition
programs. While the Committee supports these initiatives and believes
that they may bring together initial SBIR research and development with
acquisition program needs, the Committee also strongly believes that
unless program managers budget for phase III SBIR participation in their
acquisition programs that the increased utilization of small businesses
will not occur. The Committee also believes that program managers for
weapon system upgrades should expressly be charged with the
responsibility for generating small business participation in their
modification/upgrade programs, including budgeting for SBIR phase III
activities.
The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 1, 2000 which: (1) describes the current system
for small business participation, technology development, and technology
insertion into defense weapon system acquisition programs; (2) describes
improvements that are underway to improve the SBIR process; (3) provides
options, including legislative initiatives, to increase SBIR
participation in DoD weapon system programs and contracts; and (4)
provides options and incentives for weapon system program mangers to
themselves foster development of small business technologies and
integration of small business products into long term weapon system
acquisition or modernization programs.
ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS MASTER PLAN
In the fiscal year 1999 Statement of the Managers, the DoD was
directed to provide Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan with the fiscal year
2000 budget. To date, the Congress has not received the plan. The
Committee understands that the Master Plan is complete, but
disagreements on the recommendations and analysis between the Services
and the Office of Secretary of Defense prevent the plan from being
delivered to the Congress. The Committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to deliver the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan immediately.
Absent the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan, the Committee has recommended
the following program reductions and terminations: The Army's Javelin
missile system, the Army's Line-of-Sight Anti-tank missile system, and
the joint Navy and Air Force Joint Stand-off Weapon Anti-Armor missile
variant.
TACTICAL RADIOS
The Committee directs that no more than 25 percent of the funds
appropriated for the research and development of any tactical radio
program may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence certifies in writing
to the congressional defense committees that the development program
meets interoperability requirements, is not duplicative of other
developmental efforts, and is fully funded in the budget.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $5,031,788,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request 4,426,194,000
Committee recommendation 5,148,093,000
Change from budget request +721,899,000
This appropriation finances the research, development, test and
evaluation activities for the Department of the Army.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
AUTHORIZATION CHANGES
The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with
House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
Human Factors Engineering Technology 16,932 19,792 +3,400
MLRS Product Improvement Program 36,540 67,440 +30,900
Maneuver Control System 45,125 46,125 +1,000
Information Systems Security Program 9,426 15,426 +6,000
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
Sensors and Electronic Survivability 22,978 25,978 +3,000
Missile Technology 32,892 43,892 +11,000
(Note: Only to accelerate the development of a low cost guidance unit for precision guided weapons and munitions)
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology 39,749 42,249 +2,500
Weapons and Munitions Technology 34,687 37,187 +2,500
Electronics and Electronic Devices 25,796 37,596 +11,800
Countermine Systems 10,321 14,121 +3,800
Military Engineering Technology 41,085 61,085 +20,000
(Note: For the continuation of the dual-use geographic synthetic aperture radar (GeoSAR) program. The development and implementation of this airborne dual and interferometic SAR technology will not only provide the Army with highly detailed, comprehensive data and significantly contribute to target identification, trafficability analysis, and battlefield awareness capabilities, but will serve to clearly demonstrate the productivity and cost benefits which accrue through the Defense Department's dual-use policy). +5,000
Warfighter Technology 23,971 26,971 +3,000
Dual Use Applications Program 18,222 10,000 -8,222
Medical Technology 70,136 169,636 +99,500
[Note: $6,000,000 is only to continue the Army Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research program.] +15,000
Warfighter Advanced Technology 31,287 42,773 +11,486
Medical Advanced Technology 10,539 69,339 +58,800
Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology 39,893 67,643 +27,750
(Note: This Center of Excellence will focus on the development and demonstration of the next generation of warheads and explosives, and would provide the Army with the smart munitions and enhanced ballistics necessary to maintain our military's lethality overmatch) 1,800 +1,800
(Note: Only for concurrent development of light cannon armament systems for use with future vehicles)
Combat vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology 90,941 137,441 +46,500
(Note: Only to further the Army's development and deployment of the advanced combat vehicle building of the programs initiated in this area by DARPA) +13,500
(Note: Only for a technology transfer center to identify and transfer weight reduction technologies and processes for ground vehicles)
Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology 43,639 51,639 +8,000
Night Vision Advanced Technology 36,628 45,628 +9,000
(Note: The UAV could be employed as an adjunct to ground reconnaissance units. The funds are to be applied by the U.S. Army Armor Center, Ft. Knox, for concept exploration, initial hardware development and evaluation.) +5,000
Advanced Tactical Computer Science and Sensor 