106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-162
=======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1401
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 24, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-162
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1401
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-735 WASHINGTON : 1999
May 24, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Sixth Congress
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman
BOB STUMP, Arizona IKE SKELTON, Missouri
DUNCAN HUNTER, California NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia Carolina
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado LANE EVANS, Illinois
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
STEVE BUYER, Indiana NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JAMES TALENT, Missouri PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California TOM ALLEN, Maine
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ADAM SMITH, Washington
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
Carolina CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania
BOB RILEY, Alabama ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada BARON P. HILL, Indiana
MARY BONO, California MIKE THOMPSON, California
JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
STEVEN KUYKENDALL, California
DONALD SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 1
Purpose.......................................................... 2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill............................. 2
Summary Table of Authorizations................................ 3
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 10
The Administration's Defense Budget Request.................... 11
The Committee Bill: Managing Risk.............................. 12
Hearings......................................................... 13
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION.................. 13
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 13
OVERVIEW....................................................... 13
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 17
Overview................................................... 17
Items of Special Interest.................................. 21
AH-64 modifications...................................... 21
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)................... 21
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications..... 22
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications..................... 22
Longbow.................................................. 22
UH-60 Blackhawk.......................................... 23
UH-60 modifications...................................... 23
Utility/cargo airplane modifications..................... 24
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 24
Overview................................................... 24
Items of Special Interest.................................. 27
Avenger modifications.................................... 27
Avenger system summary................................... 27
Brilliant anti-armor (BAT) submunition................... 27
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems.... 27
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 28
Overview................................................... 28
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
Abrams upgrade program/heavy assault bridge (HAB)........ 32
Bradley base sustainment................................. 32
M113 carrier modifications............................... 33
M240 series medium machine gun........................... 33
M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)........................ 33
MK19-3 grenade launcher.................................. 33
Ammunition Procurement, Army................................. 34
Overview................................................... 34
Items of Special Interest.................................. 38
Ammunition............................................... 38
Hydra 70 rockets......................................... 38
Provision of industrial facilities....................... 38
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 39
Overview................................................... 39
Items of Special Interest.................................. 51
Area common user system (ACUS) modification program...... 51
Army data distribution system (ADDS)..................... 51
Artillery accuracy equipment............................. 51
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)............... 52
Combat support medical................................... 52
Family of heavy tactical vehicles........................ 53
General purpose vehicles................................. 53
High speed compactor..................................... 53
Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)..................... 53
Information system security program (ISSP)............... 54
Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)............... 54
Items less than $2.0 million (construction equipment).... 54
Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint
STARS) Common ground station (CGS)..................... 55
Lightweight video reconnaissance system (LVRS)........... 55
M56 smoke generator system............................... 55
Modification of in-service equipment..................... 56
Modification of in-service equipment (tactical
surveillance).......................................... 56
Night vision devices..................................... 57
Nonsystem training devices............................... 57
Product improved (PI) combat vehicle crewman (CVC)
headset................................................ 58
Ribbon bridge............................................ 58
Shortstop................................................ 59
Single channel ground and airborne radio systems
(SINCGARS) family...................................... 59
Small pusher tug......................................... 60
Standard teleoperating kit............................... 60
Super high frequency (SHF) terminal...................... 60
Vibratory self-propelled roller.......................... 61
Wheel-mounted 25-ton crane............................... 61
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.............. 61
Overview................................................... 61
Item of Special Interest................................... 63
Chemical agents and munitions destruction................ 63
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 63
Overview................................................... 63
Items of Special Interest.................................. 68
CH-60S................................................... 68
Common data link (CDL)................................... 68
Common ground equipment.................................. 68
E-2 modifications........................................ 68
EA-6B modifications...................................... 69
F-18 series modifications................................ 69
F/A-18E/F................................................ 69
Joint primary air training system (JPATS)................ 70
KC-130J.................................................. 70
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly
(LESPA)................................................ 71
MV-22.................................................... 71
P-3 series modifications................................. 71
T-45 training system (TS)................................ 72
UC-35.................................................... 72
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 72
Overview................................................... 72
Items of Special Interest.................................. 76
Aerial targets........................................... 76
Evolved seasparrow missile (ESSM)........................ 76
Hellfire II missile...................................... 76
Joint stand-off weapon (JSOW)............................ 76
Rolling airframe missile................................. 77
Standard missile......................................... 77
Tomahawk missiles........................................ 78
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps.................... 78
Overview................................................... 78
Items of Special Interest.................................. 81
Navy ammunition.......................................... 81
Marine corps ammunition.................................. 81
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 81
Overview................................................... 81
Items of Special Interest.................................. 84
Attack submarine force level............................. 84
LHD-8 amphibious assault ship............................ 84
Strategic sealift........................................ 84
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 85
Overview................................................... 85
Items of Special Interest.................................. 96
AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar upgrade............. 96
AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radar....................... 96
AN/USC-42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA)
ultra-high frequency (UHF) satellite communications
(SATCOM) terminals..................................... 96
Computer aided submode training (CAST) lesson authoring
system (CLASS)......................................... 97
Fire fighting equipment.................................. 97
Joint engineering data management and information control
system (JEDMICS)....................................... 97
Minesweeping equipment................................... 98
Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)................... 98
Other training equipment................................. 98
Shipboard display emulator (SDE) equipment............... 99
Sonobuoys................................................ 99
Surface sonar support equipment.......................... 99
WSN-7B ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN-2 doppler sonar
velocity log (DSVL).................................... 100
Undersea Warfare support equipment....................... 100
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 100
Overview................................................... 100
Items of Special Interest.................................. 106
155 millimeter (mm) lightweight towed howitzer........... 106
Body armor............................................... 106
Communications and electronic infrastructure support..... 106
Marine corps air ground task force (MAGTF) command,
control, communications, computers, and intelligence
(C4I) modification kits................................ 107
Material handling equipment.............................. 107
Modification kits (tracked vehicles)..................... 107
Night vision equipment................................... 108
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 108
Overview................................................... 108
Items of Special Interest.................................. 114
Bomber modernization..................................... 114
C-17..................................................... 114
C-17A aircraft modifications............................. 114
C-130J................................................... 115
C-135 modifications...................................... 115
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP)........... 115
E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system
(STARS)................................................ 116
F-15 modifications....................................... 116
F-16C.................................................... 117
F-16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS).......... 117
F-16 modifications....................................... 117
F-22..................................................... 118
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle......................... 119
T-38 modifications....................................... 120
Terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS).............. 120
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................ 120
Overview................................................... 120
Items of Special Interest.................................. 123
Air Force ammunition..................................... 123
Laser guided bombs (LGB)................................. 123
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 123
Overview................................................... 123
Items of Special Interest.................................. 127
AGM-65 modifications..................................... 127
Minuteman III modifications.............................. 127
Spaceborne equipment..................................... 127
Titan.................................................... 128
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 128
Overview................................................... 128
Items of Special Interest.................................. 135
60K a/c loader........................................... 135
Aircrew laser eye protection............................. 135
Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)............... 135
Master crane............................................. 135
Military satellite communications terminals.............. 136
National eagle system.................................... 136
Radio equipment.......................................... 136
Supply asset tracking system (SATS)...................... 137
Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment....... 137
Theater air control system (TACSI)....................... 137
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 138
Overview................................................... 138
Items of Special Interest.................................. 143
Automated document conversion system (ADCS).............. 143
Mentor protege........................................... 143
Nightstar binocular...................................... 143
National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 143
Overview................................................... 143
Items of Special Interest.................................. 145
National guard and reserve equipment..................... 145
Reconnaissance aircraft augmentation..................... 145
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 146
Overview................................................... 146
Items of Special Interest.................................. 148
Chemical agents and munitions destruction................ 148
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 149
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 149
Sections 101-109--Authorization of Appropriations.......... 149
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 149
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army
Program.................................................. 149
Section 112--Extension of Pilot Program on Sales of
Manufactured Articles and Services of Certain Army
Industrial Facilities Without Regard to Availability from
Domestic Sources......................................... 149
Section 113--Revision to Conditions for Award of a Second-
Source Procurement Contract for the Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles...................................... 149
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 150
Section 121--F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft Program....... 150
Subtitle D--Chemical Stockpile Destruction Program........... 150
Section 141--Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal
Chemical Agents and Munitions............................ 150
Section 142--Alternative Technologies for Destruction of
Assembled Chemical Weapons............................. 151
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 151
Section 151--Limitation on Expenditures for Satellite
Communications........................................... 151
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 152
OVERVIEW....................................................... 152
Army RDT&E................................................... 155
Overview................................................... 155
Items Of Special Interest.................................. 164
Aircraft avionics........................................ 164
All source analysis system............................... 164
Alternative vehicle propulsion initiative................ 164
Armament enhancement initiative.......................... 164
Army aircrew coordination training program............... 165
Army technical test instrumentation and targets.......... 165
Comanche................................................. 165
Combat vehicle improvement programs...................... 165
Combined turbine diesel engine........................... 166
Combustion driven eye-safe laser......................... 166
Concepts experimentation program......................... 166
Defense healthcare information assurance program......... 166
Defense manufacturing technology program................. 167
Environmental quality technology......................... 168
Full spectrum active protection.......................... 168
Future combat vehicle.................................... 168
Geographic synthetic aperture radar...................... 170
Geo-positioning system--inertial measurement unit
integration............................................ 170
Heart rate variability technology........................ 170
High energy laser test facility.......................... 171
High mobility artillery rocket system.................... 172
Joint service small arms program......................... 172
Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint
STARS)................................................. 172
Kwajalein missile range modernization.................... 173
Lightweight x-band radar................................. 173
Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment.... 173
MedTeams................................................. 174
Night vision advanced technology......................... 174
Panoramic night vision goggle............................ 174
Passive millimeter wave imaging.......................... 174
Patriot anti-cruise missile defense...................... 174
Plasma energy pyrolysis system........................... 175
Proximity fuzing for dual-purpose improved conventional
munition submunitions.................................. 175
Security and intelligence activities..................... 176
Self-destruct fuse....................................... 176
Semi-automated imagery processor......................... 177
Small arms fire control system........................... 177
Tactical voice control for maneuver control system....... 177
Trichloromelamine testing................................ 177
University and industrial research centers............... 178
Navy RDT&E................................................... 178
Overview................................................... 178
Items Of Special Interest.................................. 188
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle...................... 188
Advanced anti-radiation guided missile................... 188
Advanced waterjet propulsor demonstration program........ 188
Affordable advanced acoustical arrays.................... 189
Analysis of alternatives for follow-on support jammer.... 189
Aquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment........... 190
Aviation depot maintenance technology.................... 190
Beartrap nonlinear dynamics and environmental
characterization....................................... 190
C-2 eight-blade composite propeller system............... 191
Claymore marine.......................................... 191
Cooperative engagement capability........................ 191
Cruiser conversion....................................... 192
Distributed surveillance system.......................... 193
DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept
demonstration.......................................... 193
E-2C radar modernization................................. 194
Electric drive propulsion for Navy ships................. 194
Electro-optical framing technologies..................... 195
Environmentally safe energetic materials................. 195
Extended range guided munition and projectile common
guidance............................................... 195
F/A-18C/D BOL chaff countermeasure....................... 196
Free electron laser...................................... 197
Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system
technology............................................. 197
Hyper-spectral analysis.................................. 198
Improved software production management.................. 198
Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine............... 199
Joint experimentation program............................ 200
Joint non-lethal weapons programs........................ 200
Joint tactical combat training system.................... 200
Lightweight 155MM howitzer............................... 201
Littoral warfare fast patrol craft....................... 201
Location of global positioning systems jammers........... 202
Marine Corps H-1 helicopter upgrade...................... 202
Marine mammal research................................... 203
Multi-function self-aligned gate technology.............. 203
Multipurpose processor................................... 203
National oceanographic partnership program............... 204
Navy aviation survivability.............................. 205
Navy land attack missile program......................... 205
Navy theater missile defense and fleet defense radar
upgrades............................................... 206
NSSN advanced submarine systems technology development
and insertion.......................................... 207
Optical correlation technology for automatic target
recognition............................................ 208
Optically fed and controlled phased array antenna........ 208
Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer.......... 208
P-3 maritime patrol aircraft combat systems research and
development............................................ 209
Parametric airborne dipping sonar........................ 209
Phased array weather radar............................... 210
Power electronic building blocks and power node control
centers................................................ 211
Project ``M''............................................ 211
S-3B surveillance system upgrade program................. 212
Ship survivability and personnel protection.............. 212
Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates................. 212
Smart propulsor product model............................ 213
SSGN conversion from Trident-class SSBN submarines....... 213
Superconducting waveform generator....................... 214
SWATH ship mine counter-measures demonstrator............ 214
Tactical control system.................................. 215
Tactical Tomahawk........................................ 215
Trajectory correctable munitions development............. 216
Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers................... 217
Undersea warfare advanced technology..................... 217
Unmanned aerial vehicles................................. 217
Upgrading fleet systems.................................. 218
Vacuum electronics....................................... 218
Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter
demonstration.......................................... 218
Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems.... 219
Air Force RDT&E.............................................. 219
Overview................................................... 219
Items Of Special Interest.................................. 229
Airborne Laser........................................... 229
Aircrew laser eye protection............................. 229
Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office partnership..... 230
Air Force science and technology funding................. 230
Automatic target recognition........................... 231
Crew technology........................................ 231
Friction stir welding.................................. 231
Hyperspectral imaging.................................. 231
Tactical missile propulsion............................ 232
Ballistic missile technology............................. 232
B-2 upgrades............................................. 232
B-52 squadrons........................................... 233
Combat training ranges................................... 233
Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats........... 234
Common imagery processor................................. 234
Evolved expendable launch vehicle........................ 235
Global combat support system............................. 235
Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial
vehicle................................................ 235
Integrated satellite communications control.............. 235
Joint airborne SIGINT program............................ 236
Joint air-to-surface standoff missile.................... 236
Joint strike fighter..................................... 236
Kinetic energy anti-satellite............................ 237
Microsatellite technology................................ 237
Military spaceplane...................................... 238
Miniature satellite threat reporting system.............. 238
Miniaturized munitions capability........................ 238
National polar-orbiting operational environmental
surveillance system.................................... 239
Precision location and identification (PLAID) technology. 239
Satellite control network................................ 240
Simulation based forecasting decision support system
(SBFDSS)............................................... 240
Space-based infrared system-high......................... 240
Space-based infrared system-low.......................... 242
Space launch and spacelift ranges........................ 242
Spacetrack............................................... 244
Synthetic theater operations research model.............. 244
Defense Agencies RDT&E....................................... 244
Overview................................................... 244
Items of Special Interest.................................. 253
Advanced concept technology demonstration................ 253
Advanced moving target indicator radar................... 253
Aeronautical test facilities............................. 253
Airborne common sensor................................... 254
Ballistic missile defense................................ 255
Advanced technology development........................ 255
Applied research....................................... 256
Atmospheric interceptor technology..................... 256
Ballistic missile defense test targets................. 257
International cooperative programs..................... 257
Low cost launch technology............................. 257
Medium extended air defense system..................... 258
National missile defense............................... 258
Navy area defense...................................... 259
Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC-3).................. 260
Space-based laser...................................... 261
Technical operations................................... 261
Theater high altitude area defense..................... 262
Upper tier............................................. 262
Biological warfare defense program....................... 263
Chemical-biological defense program...................... 264
Chemical and biological point detectors................ 265
Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors 265
Safeguard.............................................. 265
Small unit biological detector and chemical-biological
individual sampler................................... 266
Complex systems design................................... 266
Cryofracture disposal of anti-personnel landmines........ 267
CV-22 Osprey............................................. 267
Domestic preparedness for response to terrorism involving
weapons of mass destruction............................ 267
Facial recognition technology............................ 268
Flat panel displays...................................... 268
Forging lead time technology............................. 269
Ground-based common sensor/prophet....................... 269
Information systems technology, superiority, and security 269
Global networked information enterprise security....... 270
Information assurance.................................. 271
Information assurance for national critical
infrastructures...................................... 271
Report on information superiority...................... 271
Joint theater air and missile defense organization....... 272
Logistics sustainment technology......................... 272
Medical free electron laser.............................. 273
National technology alliance............................. 273
Pilot program for revitalizing the laboratories and test
and evaluation centers of the Department of Defense.... 274
Special operations forces reconnaissance................. 274
Special operations forces small boat improvements........ 274
Special operations tactical systems development.......... 275
Strategic environmental research program................. 275
Thermionics.............................................. 275
University research initiatives.......................... 276
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 276
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 276
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 276
Section 202--Amount For Basic and Applied Research......... 276
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 276
Section 211--Collaborative Program To Evaluate And
Demonstrate Advanced Technologies For Advanced Capability
Combat Vehicles.......................................... 276
Section 212--Revisions in Manufacturing Technology Program. 277
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................ 277
Section 231--Additional Program Elements for Ballistic
Missile Defense Programs................................. 277
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 277
Section 241--Designation of the Secretary of the Army as
Executive Agent for High Energy Laser Technologies....... 277
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 277
OVERVIEW....................................................... 277
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 309
Budget Request Increases..................................... 309
Critical Readiness Accounts Increases...................... 309
Aircraft spare parts..................................... 309
Depot Maintenance........................................ 309
Training Accounts........................................ 309
Real property maintenance and base operations support.... 310
Miscellaneous unfunded requirements...................... 311
Mobility Enhancement Funding............................. 311
Modern Field Kitchen Burner Unit........................... 311
Army Cold Weather Clothing................................. 312
Budget Request Reductions.................................... 312
Administration and Support Accounts........................ 312
Advisory and Assistance Services........................... 313
Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions................ 313
Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises................... 313
Other Items of Special Interest.............................. 314
Commercial Activity Studies................................ 314
Defense Fuel Surcharges.................................... 314
Information Technology..................................... 315
Environmental Issues......................................... 315
Alternative Technologies for Asbestos Treatment and
Disposal................................................. 315
Environmental Contamination in Watershed Surrounding the
Former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at
McGregor, Texas.......................................... 316
Navy Environmental Leadership Program...................... 316
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues....................... 316
Overview................................................... 316
Appropriated Fund Support of Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation Programs...................................... 316
Combined Stores at Closed Installations.................... 317
Commissary Surcharge Fund.................................. 317
Military Exchange Privileges for Disabled Veterans......... 318
Nonappropriated Fund Retirement Plans...................... 318
Restrictions on Patron Access to Overseas Commissaries and
Exchange Stores.......................................... 318
Sale of Value Brand Products in Commissary Stores.......... 319
Vendor Representatives Overseas............................ 319
Other Issues................................................. 319
Abrams Integrated Management Program....................... 319
Apache Helicopter Support.................................. 320
Army Battery Management Program............................ 321
Army Maintenance and Personnel Systems..................... 321
Automatic Document Conversion Technology................... 322
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence--Public-
Private Partnerships..................................... 322
Civilian Marksmanship Program.............................. 322
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities......... 323
Communicator Automated Emergency Notification System....... 323
Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs.................. 324
Department of Defense Dependent Schools.................... 324
Excess Military Property for Law Enforcement Agencies...... 325
Home Schooled Children Overseas............................ 325
Information Systems Security Education..................... 325
Joint Warfare Analysis Center.............................. 326
Military Affiliate Radio System............................ 326
Tugboat Operations......................................... 327
Urban Warfare Training..................................... 327
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 328
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 328
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 328
Section 302--Working Capital Funds......................... 328
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................. 328
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund......................................... 328
Section 305--Transfer to Defense Working Capital Funds to
Support Defense Commissary Agency........................ 328
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 329
Section 311--Reimbursement of Navy Exchange Service Command
for Relocation Expenses.................................. 329
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions......................... 329
Section 321--Remediation of Asbestos and Lead Based Paint.. 329
Subtitle D--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector
Sources.................................................... 329
Section 331--Expansion of Annual Report on Contracting for
Commercial and Industrial type Functions................. 329
Section 332--Congressional Notification of A-76 Cost
Comparison Waivers....................................... 329
Section 333--Improved Evaluation of Local Economic Effect
of Changing Defense Functions to Private Sector
Performance.............................................. 330
Section 334--Annual Report on Expenditures for Performance
of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads by Public
and Private Sectors...................................... 330
Section 335--Applicability of Competition Requirement in
Contracting Out Workloads Performed by Depot-Level
Activities of Department of Defense...................... 330
Section 336--Treatment of Public Sector Winning Bidders for
Contracts for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and
Repair Workloads Formerly Performed at Certain Military
Installations............................................ 330
Section 337--Process for Modernization of Computer Systems
at Army Computer Centers................................. 330
Section 338--Evaluation of Total System Performance
Responsibility Program................................... 331
Section 339--Identification of Core Logistics Capability
Requirements for Maintenance and Repair of C-17 Aircraft. 331
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education..................... 332
Section 341--Assistance to Local Education Agencies that
Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees................. 332
Section 342--Continuation of Enrollment at Department of
Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary
Schools.................................................. 332
Section 343--Technical Amendments to Defense Dependents'
Education Act of 1978.................................... 332
Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues........................ 333
Section 351--Independent Study of Department of Defense
Secondary Inventory and Parts Shortages.................. 333
Section 352--Independent Study of Adequacy of Department
Restructured Sustainment and Reengineered Logistics
Product Support Practices................................ 333
Section 353--Independent Study of Military Readiness
Reporting System......................................... 334
Section 354--Review of Real Property Maintenance and its
Effect on Readiness...................................... 335
Section 355--Establishment of Logistics Standards for
Sustained Military Operations............................ 335
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 336
Section 361--Discretionary Authority to Install
Telecommunication Equipment for Persons Performing
Voluntary Services....................................... 336
Section 362--Contracting Authority for Defense Working
Capital Funded Industrial Facilities..................... 336
Section 363--Clarification of Condition on Sale of Articles
and Services of Industrial Facilities to Persons Outside
Department of Defense.................................... 336
Section 364--Special Authority of Disbursing Officials
Regarding Automated Teller Machines on Naval Vessels..... 336
Section 365--Preservation of Historic Buildings and Grounds
at United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, District of
Columbia................................................. 337
Section 366--Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority,
United States Soldiers' and Airman's Home................ 337
Section 367--Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in
Defense Household Goods Moving Programs.................. 337
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW...................................... 338
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 342
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 342
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 342
Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum
Levels................................................... 342
Section 403--Appointments to Certain Senior Joint Officer
Positions................................................ 343
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 344
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 344
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 344
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 345
Section 414--Increase in Number of Army and Air Force
Members in Certain Grades Authorized to Serve on Active
Duty in Support of the Reserves.......................... 346
Section 415--Selected Reserve End Strength Flexibility..... 346
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 346
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military
Personnel................................................ 346
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 348
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 348
Backlog in Requests for Replacement of Military Awards and
Decorations.............................................. 348
Commissioning of Ms. Ella E. Gibson........................ 348
Electronic Transmission of Certificates of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty............................... 349
Enlisted Promotions........................................ 349
Junior Reserve Officer Training Program (JROTC)............ 349
Merchant Marine Academy Midshipmen......................... 350
Recruiting................................................. 350
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Program (SROTC).......... 351
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 351
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 351
Section 501--Recommendations for Promotion by Selection
Boards................................................... 351
Section 502--Technical Amendments Relating to Joint Duty
Assignments.............................................. 352
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components........... 352
Section 511--Continuation on Reserve Active Status List to
Complete Disciplinary Action............................. 352
Section 512--Authority to Order Reserve Component Members
to Active Duty to Complete a Medical Evaluation.......... 352
Section 513--Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion... 352
Section 514--Retention until Completion of 20 Years of
Service for Reserve Component Majors and Lieutenant
Commanders Who Twice Fail of Selection for Promotion..... 352
Section 515--Computation of Years of Service Exclusion..... 352
Section 516--Authority to Retain Reserve Component
Chaplains Until Age 67................................... 353
Section 517--Expansion and Codification of Authority for
Space-Required Travel for Reserves....................... 353
Section 518--Financial Assistance Program for Specially
Selected Members of the Marine Corps Reserve............. 353
Section 519--Options to Improve Recruiting for the Army
Reserve.................................................. 353
Subtitle C--Military Technicians............................. 354
Section 521--Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status)
Law...................................................... 354
Section 522--Civil Service Retirement of Technicians....... 354
Section 523--Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians
Statute.................................................. 355
Section 524--Revision to Authorities Relating to National
Guard Technicians........................................ 355
Section 525--Effective Date................................ 355
Section 526--Secretary of Defense Review of Army Technician
Costing Process.......................................... 355
Section 527--Fiscal Year 2000 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Status Technicians.................................. 355
Subtitle D--Service Academies................................ 356
Section 531--Waiver of Reimbursement of Expenses for
Instruction at Service Academies of Persons from Foreign
Countries................................................ 356
Section 532--Compliance by United States Military Academy
with Statutory Limit on Size of Corps of Cadets.......... 356
Section 533--Dean of Academic Board, United States Military
Academy, and Dean of the Faculty, United States Air Force
Academy.................................................. 356
Section 534--Exclusion from Certain General and Flag
Officer Grade Strength Limitations for the
Superintendents of the Service Academies................. 356
Subtitle E--Education and Training........................... 357
Section 541--Establishment of a Department of Defense
International Student Program at the Senior Military
Colleges................................................. 357
Section 542--Authority for Army War College to Award Degree
of Master of Strategic Studies........................... 357
Section 543--Authority for Air University to Award
Graduate-Level Degrees................................... 357
Section 544--Correction of Reserve Credit for Participation
in Health Professional Scholarship and Financial
Assistance Program....................................... 357
Section 545--Permanent Expansion of ROTC Program to Include
Graduate Students........................................ 357
Section 546--Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for
Senior ROTC Cadets Selected for Advanced Training........ 358
Section 547--Contingent Funding increase for Junior ROTC
Program.................................................. 358
Section 548--Change from Annual to Biennial Reporting under
the Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill................. 358
Section 549--Recodification and Consolidation of Statutes
Denying Federal Grants and Contracts by Certain
Departments and Agencies to Institutions of Higher
Education that Prohibit Senior ROTC Units or Military
Recruiting on Campus..................................... 358
Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards........................... 358
Section 551--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of
Certain Decorations to Certain Persons................... 358
Section 552--Sense of Congress Concerning Presidential Unit
Citation for Crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis............. 358
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 359
Section 561--Revision in Authority to Order Retired Members
to Active Duty........................................... 359
Section 562--Temporary Authority for Recall of Retired
Aviators................................................. 359
Section 563--Service Review Agencies Covered by
Professional Staffing Requirement........................ 359
Section 564--Conforming Amendment to Authorize Reserve
Officers and Retired Regular Officers to Hold a Civil
Office while Serving on Active Duty for Not More than 270
Days..................................................... 359
Section 565--Revision to Requirement for Honor Guard
Details at Funerals of Veterans.......................... 360
Section 566--Purpose and Funding Limitations for National
Guard Challenge Program.................................. 361
Section 567--Access to Secondary School Students for
Military Recruiting Purposes............................. 361
Section 568--Survey of Members Leaving Military Service on
Attitudes Toward Military Service........................ 361
Section 569--Improvement in System for Assigning Personnel
to Warfighting Units..................................... 361
Section 570--Requirement for Department of Defense
Regulations to Protect the Confidentiality of
Communications Between Dependents and Professionals
Providing Therapeutic or Related Services Regarding
Sexual or Domestic Abuse................................. 362
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 363
OVERVIEW....................................................... 363
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 364
Tax Deferred Savings Plans................................... 364
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 364
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 364
Section 601--Fiscal Year 2000 Increase in Military Basic
Pay and Reform of Basic Pay Rates........................ 364
Section 602--Pay Increases for Fiscal Years after Fiscal
Year 2000................................................ 364
Section 603--Additional Amount Available for Fiscal year
2000 Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the
United States............................................ 365
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 365
Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces........................... 365
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered
Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists........................... 365
Section 613--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment
of Other Bonuses and Special Pays........................ 366
Section 614--Aviation Career Incentive Pay for Air Battle
Managers................................................. 366
Section 615--Expansion of Authority to Provide Special Pay
to Aviation Career Officers Extending Period of Active
Duty..................................................... 366
Section 616--Diving Duty Special Pay....................... 366
Section 617--Reenlistment Bonus............................ 366
Section 618--Enlistment Bonus.............................. 366
Section 619--Revised Eligibility Requirements for Reserve
Component Prior Service Enlistment Bonus................. 366
Section 620--Increase in Special Pay and Bonuses for
Nuclear-Qualified Officers............................... 367
Section 621--Increase in Authorized Monthly Rate of Foreign
Language Proficiency Pay................................. 367
Section 622--Authorization of Retention Bonus for Special
Warfare Officers Extending period of Active Duty......... 367
Section 623--Authorization of Surface Warfare Officer
Continuation Pay......................................... 367
Section 624--Authorization of Career Enlisted Flyer
Incentive Pay............................................ 367
Section 625--Authorization of Judge Advocate Continuation
Pay...................................................... 368
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 368
Section 631--Provision of Lodging in Kind for Reservists
Performing Training Duty and Not Otherwise Entitled to
Travel and Transportation Allowances..................... 368
Section 632--Payment of Temporary Lodging Expenses for
Members Making their First Permanent Change of Station... 368
Section 633--Emergency Leave Travel Cost Limitations....... 368
Subtitle D--Retired Pay Reform............................... 368
Section 641-644--Redux Retired Pay System Applicable Only
to Members Electing New 15-Year Career Status Bonus...... 368
Subtitle E--Other Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits Matters.. 369
Section 651--Effective Date of Disability Retirement for
Members Dying in Civilian Medical Facilities............. 369
Section 652--Extension of Annuity Eligibility for Surviving
Spouses of Certain Retirement Eligible Reserve Members... 369
Section 653--Presentation of United States Flag to Retiring
Members of the Uniformed Services Not Previously Covered. 370
Section 654--Accrual Funding for Retirement System for
Commissioned Corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration........................................... 370
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 370
Section 671--Payments for Unused Accrued Leave as Part of
Reenlistment............................................. 370
Section 672--Clarification of Per Diem Eligibility for
Military Technicians Serving on Active Duty without Pay
Outside the United States................................ 370
Section 673--Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program.... 370
Section 674--Special Compensation for Severely Disabled
Uniformed Services Retirees.............................. 371
Section 675--Tuition Assistance for Members Deployed in a
Contingency Operations................................... 371
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS................................... 372
OVERVIEW....................................................... 372
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 372
Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines..................... 372
Defense Health Program Unfunded Requirements............... 373
Report on Portability of TRICARE Prime Benefits............ 373
Report on Preventive Healthcare Services................... 373
Study on the Effect of TRICARE Cost Sharing on the
Financial Status of Enlisted Service Members in Pay
Grades E-1 Through E-4................................... 374
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 374
Subtitle A--Health Care Services............................. 374
Section 701--Provision of Health Care to Members on Active
Duty at Certain Remote Locations......................... 374
Section 702--Provision of Chiropractic Health Care......... 375
Section 703--Continuation of Provision of Domiciliary and
Custodial Care for Certain CHAMPUS Beneficiaries......... 375
Section 704--Removal of Restriction on Use of Funds for
Abortions in Cases of Rape or Incest..................... 376
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program.................................. 376
Section 711--Improvements to Claims Processing Under the
TRICARE Program.......................................... 376
Section 712--Authority to Waive Certain TRICARE Deductibles 376
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 376
Section 721--Pharmacy Benefits Program..................... 376
Section 722--Improvements to third-Party Payer Collection
Program.................................................. 377
Section 723--Authority of Armed Forces Medical Examiner to
Conduct Forensic Pathology Investigations................ 378
Section 724--Trauma Training Center........................ 378
Section 725--Study on Joint Operations for the Defense
Health Program........................................... 378
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 379
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 379
Section 801--Sale, Exchange, and Waiver Authority for Coal
and Coke................................................. 379
Section 802--Extension of Authority to Issue Solicitations
for Purchases of Commercial Items in Excess of Simplified
Acquisition Threshold.................................... 379
Section 803--Expansion of Applicability of Requirement to
Make Certain Procurements From Small Arms Production
Industrial Base.......................................... 379
Section 804--Repeal of Termination of Provision of Credit
Towards Subcontracting Goals for Purchases Benefiting
Severely Handicapped Persons............................. 379
Section 805--Extension of Test Program for Negotiation of
Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans........ 379
Section 806--Facilitation of National Missile Defense
System................................................... 380
Section 807--Options for Accelerated Acquisition of
Precision Munitions...................................... 380
Section 808--Program to Increase Opportunity for Small
Business Innovation in Defense Acquisition Programs...... 380
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 381
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 381
Section 901--Limitation on Amount Available for Contracted
Advisory and Assistance Services......................... 381
Section 902--Responsibility for Logistics and Sustainment
Functions of the Department of Defense................... 381
Section 903--Management Headquarters and Headquarters
Support Activities....................................... 382
Section 904--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and
Support Workforce........................................ 383
Section 905--Center for the Study of Chinese Military
Affairs.................................................. 383
Section 906--Responsibility Within Office of the Secretary
of Defense for Monitoring OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO.......... 384
Section 907--Report on Military Space issues............... 385
Section 908--Employment and Compensation of Civilian
Faculty Members of Department of Defense African Center
for Strategic Studies.................................... 385
Section 909--Additional Matters for Annual Report on Joint
Warfighting Experimentation.............................. 385
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 386
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 386
Counter-Drug Activities........................................ 386
Overview..................................................... 386
Items of Special Interest.................................... 387
Air National Guard fighter operations...................... 387
Colombian detection and monitoring......................... 387
Joint interagency task force-West.......................... 388
Other joint military intelligence programs................. 388
Requirement for Report on Forward Operating Locations...... 388
Southwest border fence..................................... 389
Tethered aerostat radar system............................. 389
Transfer of military construction funding for forward
operating locations...................................... 389
Transit zone detection and monitoring...................... 389
Other Matters................................................ 390
Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass
Destruction.............................................. 390
Department of Defense Responsiveness to Congressional
Questions for the Record................................. 392
Illegal Immigration to Guam................................ 392
Pentagon Reservation Renovation Security Upgrades.......... 392
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 393
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 393
Section 1001--Transfer Authority........................... 393
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............ 393
Section 1003--Authorization of Prior Emergency Military
Personnel Appropriations................................. 393
Section 1004--Repeal of Requirement for Two-Year Budget
Cycle for the Department of Defense...................... 394
Section 1005--Consolidation of Various Department of the
Navy Trust and Gift Funds................................ 394
Section 1006--Budgeting for Operations in Yugoslavia....... 394
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 396
Section 1011--Revision to Congressional Notice-and-Wait
Period Required Before Transfer of a Vessel Stricken from
Naval Vessel Register.................................... 396
Section 1012--Authority to Consent to Retransfer of Former
Naval Vessel............................................. 396
Section 1013--Report on Naval Vessel Force Structure
Requirements............................................. 396
Section 1014--Auxiliary Vessels Acquisition Program for the
Department of Defense.................................... 396
Section 1015--Authority to Provide Advance Payments for the
National Defense Features Program........................ 396
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities...... 396
Section 1021--Support for Detection and Monitoring
Activities in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.................. 396
Section 1022--Condition on Development of Forward Operating
Locations for United States Southern Command Counter-Drug
Detection and Monitoring Flights......................... 397
Section 1023--United States Military Activities in Colombia 398
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 399
Section 1031--Identification in Budget Materials of Amounts
for Declassification Activities and Limitation on
Expenditures for Such Activities......................... 399
Section 1032--Notice to Congressional committees of
Compromise of Classified Information within Defense
Programs of the United States............................ 400
Section 1033--Revision to Limitation on Retirement or
Dismantlement of Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems...... 400
Section 1034--Annual Report by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of
Staff on the Risks in Executing the Missions Called for
Under the National Military Strategy..................... 401
Section 1035--Requirement to Address Unit Operations Tempo
and Personal Tempo in Department of Defense Annual Report 402
Section 1036--Preservation of Certain Defense Reporting
Requirements............................................. 403
Section 1037--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 403
Section 1038--Contributions for Spirit of Hope Endowment
Fund of United Service Organizations, Incorporated....... 403
Section 1039--Chemical Defense Training Facility........... 403
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL............... 404
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS....................................... 404
Section 1101--Increase of Pay Cap for Nonappropriated Fund
Senior Executive Employees............................... 404
Section 1102--Restoration of Leave for Certain Department
of Defense Employees who Deploy to a Combat Zone Outside
the United States........................................ 404
Section 1103--Expansion of Guard-and-Reserve Purposes for
which Leave under Section 6323 of Title 5, United States
Code, May be Used........................................ 404
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS..................... 405
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 405
Arms Control Implementation.................................. 405
Ballistic Missile Defense Discussions with Russia............ 406
Department of Defense Review of Satellite Licenses........... 406
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 407
Section 1201--Report on Strategic Stability Under START III 407
Section 1202--One Year Extension of Counterproliferation
Authorities for Support of United Nations Weapons
Inspection Regime in Iraq................................ 408
Section 1203--Military-to-Military contacts with Chinese
People's Liberation Army................................. 408
Section 1204--Report on Allied Capabilities to Contribute
to Major Theater Wars.................................... 410
Section 1205--Limitation on Funds for Bosnia Peacekeeping
Operations for Fiscal Year 2000.......................... 410
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER
SOVIET UNION................................................. 411
OVERVIEW....................................................... 411
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 412
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia........................ 412
Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine....................... 414
Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia...... 414
Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia..................... 415
Fissile Material Storage Facility.......................... 417
Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion............................ 418
Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia......... 419
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia................. 419
Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security.................... 419
Other Support Programs..................................... 419
Prohibition of Specified Activities........................ 420
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 420
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs and Funds....................................... 420
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 420
Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified
Purposes................................................. 420
Section 1304--Limitation on Use of Funds for Fissile
Material Storage Facility................................ 420
Section 1305--Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical
Weapons Destruction...................................... 421
Section 1306--Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological
Weapons Proliferation Prevention Activities.............. 421
Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission
of Report and Multiyear Plan............................. 421
Section 1308--Requirement to Submit Report................. 421
Section 1309--Report on Expanded Threat Reduction
Initiative............................................... 421
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 423
PURPOSE........................................................ 423
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW................................. 423
STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET REQUEST................................ 424
TITLE XXI--ARMY.................................................. 444
SUMMARY........................................................ 444
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 444
Improvements to Military Family Housing.................... 444
Environmental Remediation at Volunteer Army Ammunition
Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee............................ 444
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 444
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 444
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 445
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 445
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 445
TITLE XXII--NAVY................................................. 446
SUMMARY........................................................ 446
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 446
Headquarters, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific.................. 446
Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance
Facilities, Blount Island Jacksonville, Florida.......... 446
Improvements to Military Family Housing.................... 447
Unspecified Minor Construction............................. 447
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 447
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 447
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 447
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 447
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 447
Section 2205--Authorization to Accept Electrical Substation
Improvements, Guam....................................... 447
Section 2206--Correction in Authorized Use of Funds, Marine
Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia..... 448
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE........................................... 449
SUMMARY........................................................ 449
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 449
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 449
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 449
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 449
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 449
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES..................................... 450
SUMMARY........................................................ 450
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 450
Military Construction in Support of Base Closure and
Realignment Activities................................... 450
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 450
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 450
Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 450
Section 2403--Military Housing Improvement Program......... 451
Section 2404--Energy Conservation Projects................. 451
Section 2405--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 451
Section 2406--Increase in Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization
for Military Construction Projects Pueblo Chemical
Activity, Colorado....................................... 451
Section 2407--Condition on Obligation of Military
Construction Funds for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities............................................... 451
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.................... 452
SUMMARY........................................................ 452
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 452
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 452
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 452
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 453
SUMMARY........................................................ 453
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 453
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 453
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS.......... 454
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 454
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to be Specified by Law.......................... 454
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain
Fiscal Year 1997 Projects................................ 454
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1996 Projects....................................... 454
Section 2704--Effective Date............................... 454
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS................................. 455
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 455
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes.......................................... 455
Section 2801--Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment......................... 455
Section 2802--Development of Ford Island, Hawaii........... 455
Section 2803--Restriction on Authority to Acquire or
Construct Ancillary Supporting Facilities for Housing
Units.................................................... 456
Section 2804--Planning and Design for Military Construction
Projects for Reserve Components.......................... 456
Section 2805--Limitation on Authority to Carry Out Small
Projects for Acquisition of Facilities for Reserve
Components............................................... 456
Section 2806--Expansion of Entities Eligible to participate
in Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement
of Military Housing...................................... 456
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 457
Section 2811--Extension of Authority for Lease of Land for
Special Operations Activities............................ 457
Section 2812--Utility Privatization Authority.............. 457
Section 2813--Acceptance of Funds to Cover Administrative
Expenses Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions.. 457
Section 2814--Study and Report on Impacts to Military
Readiness of Proposed Land Management Changes on Public
Lands in Utah............................................ 457
Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 458
Section 2821--Continuation of Authority to Use Department
of Defense Base Closure Account 1990 for Activities
Required to Close or Realign Military Installations...... 458
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 458
Part I--Army Conveyances................................... 458
Section 2831--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Fort Sam Houston,
Texas.................................................... 458
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Kankakee, Illinois....................................... 458
Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Fort Des Moines, Iowa....... 458
Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Army Maintenance Support
Activity (Marine) Number 84, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania... 458
Section 2835--Land Conveyance, Army Docks and Related
Property, Alaska......................................... 459
Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Fort Huachuca, Arizona...... 459
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Cannon
Falls, Minnesota......................................... 459
Section 2838--Land Conveyance, Nike Battery 80 Family
Housing Site, East Hanover Township, New Jersey.......... 459
Section 2839--Land Exchange, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois. 460
Section 2840--Modification of Land Conveyance, Joliet Army
Ammunition Plant, Illinois............................... 460
Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant, Minnesota......................................... 460
Part II--Navy Conveyances.................................. 460
Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Naval Weapons industrial
Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas, Texas..................... 460
Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Naval and Marine Corps
Reserve Center, Orange County, Texas..................... 461
Section 2853--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station,
Cherry Point, North Carolina............................. 461
Part III--Air Force Conveyances............................ 461
Section 2861--Conveyance of Fuel Supply Line, Pease Air
Force Base, New Hampshire................................ 461
Section 2862--Land Conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base,
Florida.................................................. 461
Section 2863--Land Conveyance, Port of Anchorage, Alaska... 462
Section 2864--Land Conveyance, Forestport Test Annex, New
York..................................................... 462
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 462
Section 2871--Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery..... 462
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................... 463
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 463
OVERVIEW....................................................... 463
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 476
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative................. 476
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative Construction
Projects................................................. 476
Arms Control and Nonproliferation.......................... 477
Commercializing Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention... 477
Commission to Review Nuclear Policy and Management......... 478
Comptroller General Audit of Department of Energy Contract
Management Practices..................................... 478
Construction Projects...................................... 479
Education.................................................. 479
Eligibility to Bid on Excess Department of Energy Equipment
at the Savannah River Site............................... 480
Environmental Management Science Program................... 480
Environmental Management Environmental, Safety, and Health. 480
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)... 480
Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Compliance................ 481
Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant Deactivation............. 481
Hanford Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning........ 481
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL) Post 2006 Completion............................. 481
Inertial Confinement Fusion................................ 481
In-Tank Precipitation Process.............................. 482
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting 482
International Nuclear Safety............................... 482
Naval Reactors............................................. 483
Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex......................... 483
Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reserve.......................... 483
Oak Ridge Operations Compliance Obligations................ 484
Office of Counterintelligence.............................. 484
Pit Production............................................. 484
Program Direction for Defense Programs..................... 485
Program Direction for Environmental Management............. 485
Records Declassification................................... 485
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project.. 485
Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment.............. 485
Security Investigations.................................... 486
Stockpile Management....................................... 486
Stockpile Management Fissile Material Storage and
Disposition.............................................. 487
Technology Partnerships.................................... 487
Worker and Community Transition............................ 488
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 488
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorization......... 488
Section 3101--Weapons Activities........................... 488
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management............................................... 488
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 488
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 488
Section 3105--Defense Environmental Management
Privatization............................................ 489
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 489
Section 3121--Reprogramming................................ 489
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects............. 489
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects.............. 489
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority...................... 489
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
Design................................................... 489
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and
Construction Activities.................................. 490
Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security
Programs of the Department of Energy..................... 490
Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................ 490
Section 3129--Transfers of Defense Environmental Management
Funds.................................................... 490
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 490
Section 3131--Limitation on Use at Department of Energy
Laboratories of Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives
for Proliferation Prevention Program..................... 490
Section 3132--Prohibition on Use for Payment of Russian
Government Taxes and Customs Duties of Funds Appropriated
for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program. 491
Section 3133--Modification of Laboratory Directed Research
and Development to Provide Funds for Theater Ballistic
Missile Defense.......................................... 491
Section 3134--Support of Theater Ballistic Missile Defense
Activities of the Department of Defense.................. 492
Subtitle D--Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management......... 492
Section 3151-3159--Commission to Examine Nuclear Weapons
Policy Management and Oversight.......................... 492
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 493
Section 3161--Procedures for Meeting Tritium Production
Requirements............................................. 493
Section 3162--Extension of Authority of Department of
Energy to Pay Voluntary Separation Payments.............. 493
Section 3163--Fellowship Program for Development of Skills
Critical to the Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons
Complex.................................................. 494
Section 3164--Department of Energy Records Declassification 494
Section 3165--Management of Nuclear Weapons Production
Facilities and National Laboratories..................... 494
Section 3166--Notice to Congressional Committees of
Compromise of Classified Information within Nuclear
Energy Defense Programs.................................. 495
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 496
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION.......................................... 496
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 496
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE......................... 497
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION.......................................... 497
Section 3301--Definitions.................................. 497
Section 3302--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds........... 497
Section 3303--Elimination of Congressionally Imposed
Disposal Restrictions on Specific Stockpile Materials.... 497
TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION............................. 498
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 498
Great Lakes Maritime Academy............................... 498
Merchant Marine Academy.................................... 498
Repair and Maintenance of Maritime Administration Vessels.. 498
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 499
Section 3401--Short Title.................................. 499
Section 3402--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 2000................................................ 499
Section 3403--Amendments to Title XI of the Merchant Marine
Act of 1936.............................................. 499
Section 3404--Extension of War Risk Insurance.............. 499
Section 3405--Ownership of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN............ 500
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION.............................. 501
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 501
Section 3501--Short Title.................................. 501
Section 3502--Authorization of Expenditures................ 501
Section 3503--Purchase of Vehicles......................... 501
Section 3504--Office of Transition Administration.......... 501
Departmental Data................................................ 502
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 502
Military Construction Authorization Request.................... 502
Committee Position............................................... 503
Communications From Other Committees............................. 503
Fiscal Data...................................................... 511
Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 511
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...................... 512
Authorization of Appropriations.............................. 512
Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 527
Oversight Findings............................................... 527
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 527
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 527
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 528
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 534
Additional, Dissenting, and Supplemental Views................... 685
Additional views of Roscoe G. Bartlett, Gene Taylor, Joseph R.
Pitts........................................................ 685
Additional views of Patrick J. Kennedy......................... 687
Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Robert A. Brady, Lane
Evans, Thomas H. Allen, Ellen O. Tauscher, Patrick J.
Kennedy, Neil Abercrombie, Rob R. Blagojevich, Mike Thompson. 688
Additional views of Ike Skelton................................ 689
Additional views of Ike Skelton, Norman Sisisky, John M.
Spratt, Jr., Solomon P. Ortiz, Owen Pickett, Lane Evans, Gene
Taylor, Neil Abercrombie, Martin T. Meehan, Robert A.
Underwood, Patrick J. Kennedy, Rod R. Blagojevich, Silvestre
Reyes, Thomas H. Allen, Jim Turner, Adam Smith, Loretta
Sanchez, James H. Maloney, Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert A.
Brady, Robert E. Andrews, Baron P. Hill, Mike Thompson, John
B. Larson.................................................... 690
Additional views of James M. Talent--Army Logistics
Modernization................................................ 692
Additional views of James M. Talent--Navy's F/A 18E/F Super
Hornet....................................................... 695
Additional views of Gene Taylor................................ 696
Additional views of Robert A. Underwood........................ 698
Additional views of Robert A. Underwood, Lane Evans, Norman
Sisisky, Thomas H. Allen, Solomon P. Ortiz, and Neil
Abercrombie.................................................. 700
Supplemental views of Ciro D. Rodriguez........................ 702
Dissenting views of Cynthia A. McKinney........................ 704
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-162
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
_______
May 24, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Spence, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1401]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2000 and 2001 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause of
the bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in
the reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1401. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
PURPOSE
The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2000 for procurement and for research, development, test
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2000 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2000: (a) the
personnel strength for each active duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4)
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2000 for the Department of Energy national security
programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000
for the operation of the Panama Canal Commission; and (9)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the Maritime
Administration.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The
bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts
provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following
categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement;
research, development, test and evaluation; operation and
maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and
military construction and family housing. The bill also
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs, the
Panama Canal Commission and the Maritime Administration.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The President requested budget authority of $280.5 billion
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2000.
Of this amount, the President requested $266.9 billion for the
Department of Defense (including $5.4 billion for military
construction and family housing) and $12.4 billion for
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall level of $288.8 billion
in budget authority. This amount is consistent with the
discretionary defense spending limitations imposed by the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and it represents an increase of
approximately $18.3 billion from the amount authorized for
appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261). Overall, the committee's
recommendation is consistent with the amounts established in
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000
for the national defense budget function.
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
The following table provides a summary of the amounts
requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the
bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of
Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how
the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for
the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the
budget authority implications of committee action, the table
reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for
proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
once again reflects the committee's efforts to address decade-
long concerns about the declining state of the U.S. armed
forces. The combination of reduced defense resources and
increased military commitments around the world has resulted in
a diminished quality of military life, a severe degradation in
the readiness of units to train for and execute their primary
combat missions, and an erosion of the technological advantages
enjoyed by U.S. forces on the battlefield as a result of
delayed equipment modernization.
Over the past several months, the challenges confronting
U.S. armed forces have been put into stark relief by the war in
the former Yugoslav republic of Kosovo. The unanticipated
strength of Serb resistance has resulted in a significant
expansion of the U.S. and NATO air war, to the point where the
number of aircraft involved in Operation Allied Force is
nearing levels anticipated in a major theater war. As a result,
the ability of U.S. armed forces to meet their worldwide
commitments is increasingly in question. From substantial gaps
in the regional deployment of aircraft carriers, to shortages
of cruise missiles and other precision munitions, to strains on
the fleets of specialized electronic warfare and tanker
aircraft, and even to stresses on the conventional fighter and
attack aircraft force, the air campaign over Yugoslavia has
revealed the extent to which today's U.S. military is
overextended.
Should current operations against Yugoslavia evolve into
ground combat or even peacekeeping operations involving U.S.
troops, the strains that such a ground operation would place on
U.S. forces worldwide would escalate rapidly. According to the
Administration, just a peacekeeping force in Kosovo would
require 50,000 to 60,000 NATO troops, with perhaps 20,000 U.S.
soldiers participating in what would likely become a long-term,
open-ended commitment. There should be no doubt that any future
requirement for the U.S. Army to sustain a force of such size
in the Balkans, on a rotational basis, will increase the
exposure of U.S. interests in other regions of the world to
challenge.
For years, the committee has highlighted the difficulties
U.S. armed forces would face in executing the National Military
Strategy's requirement to be capable of fighting nearly
simultaneous wars in the Persian Gulf and in Korea. The
unforeseen challenges and shortfalls revealed by the need to
wage a third ``major theater war'' in Europe--even absent the
deployment of U.S. ground forces--unfortunately affirms the
committee's long-standing concerns. Testifying earlier this
month about ongoing operations in the Balkans, Secretary of
Defense William Cohen admitted that ``we have a situation where
we have a smaller force and we have more missions, and so . . .
we are wearing out systems, wearing out people.'' These
problems are not new, and they are getting worse. The committee
hopes that the obvious strains being placed on the military
services as a result of Operation Allied Force will at least
compel some broader recognition of the shortfalls confronting
the nation's armed forces and lead to a sustained and
bipartisan commitment to revitalizing America's military.
The Administration's Defense Budget Request
In the context of mounting quality of life, readiness, and
modernization shortfalls, the committee once again believes the
Administration's defense budget request falls short. Earlier
this year, the President declared in his State of the Union
address that ``it is time to reverse the decline in defense
spending that began in 1985....My balanced budget calls for a
sustained increase over the next six years for readiness, for
modernization, and for pay and benefits for our troops and
their families.'' The President's words, following as they did
on the heels of last fall's testimony by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff (JCS) that the military services had critical unfunded
requirements of at least $150 billion over the next six years,
provided a degree of hope that the Administration had ``turned
the corner'' and recognized the need to substantially increase
defense spending. The unfortunate reality became apparent,
however, when the President unveiled his fiscal year 2000
budget request and six-year defense plan--a plan that relied
heavily on budgetary gimmicks and optimistic economic
assumptions and which provided increased funding sufficient to
address only about one half of the Joint Chiefs' identified
shortfalls in critical military requirements. Moreover, the
Administration conditioned even its ``50 percent solution'' on
the achievement of domestic political objectives involving
Social Security reform.
Earlier this year, the Joint Chiefs updated their estimates
of unfunded quality of life, readiness, and modernization
requirements. Even assuming the validity of the budget gimmicks
and optimistic assumptions contained in the Administration's
budget request, the Joint Chiefs testified that the six-year
defense plan still fell $46.7 billion short of their minimal
requirements. If the Administration's budget gimmicks and
optimistic economic assumptions are judged invalid, the six-
year defense plan falls at least $70 billion short of
addressing the services' shortfalls.
Even as the Administration was crafting its fiscal year
2000 budget request, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were concluding
that the ability of U.S. armed forces to execute the full range
of missions required by the National Military Strategy entailed
``moderate to high'' risk. Marine Commandant General Charles
Krulak summarized the JCS' assessment in testimony before the
committee, stating, ``In terms of risk to the [ability to
execute] the National Military Strategy, I think we've gone too
far; I think we're there now. If we don't do something about
this, we're going to be back into the hollow armed forces and
this nation can't have that, can't take that, because the world
is changing so rapidly, is so dangerous, that we need to stop
this now.''
During months of oversight hearings, the motto of the post-
Cold-War military--``doing more with less''--was once again the
predominant theme heard from all ranks and services. As Army
Chief of Staff General Dennis Reimer informed the committee in
January, ``Army leaders at all levels have been fighting to
meet expanding requirements with diminishing resources. Our
commanders are struggling to balance operational readiness--
supporting training and maintaining equipment--with base
operations expenses and maintaining soldiers' quality of
life.'' Likewise, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson
expressed ``serious concerns'' about personnel, training, and
equipment maintenance problems that were creating an ``erosion
of readiness at home and even the beginning stages of
degradation in our deployed forces.'' A decade ago, Navy non-
deployed units reported high states of readiness nearly 70
percent of the time, while today the figure has slipped to
approximately 50 percent.
The Air Force is confronting similar problems. Air Combat
Command has suffered a 56 percent drop in readiness rates since
1996. The aging of the Air Force fleet and the resulting
increased costs and expanded maintenance workload caused by
aircraft fatigue, corrosion, and parts obsolescence underlies
the Air Force's worsening readiness problems. Under projected
budgets and modernization plans, the average Air Force aircraft
will be 20 years old by the turn of the century and 30 years
old by 2015. Air Force ``non-mission capable'' rates have
increased 53 percent since the Persian Gulf War while the rate
of ``cannibalization''--the practice of stripping parts from
one aircraft or system to replace broken parts on another--has
increased 75 percent.
The services' long-term quality of life, readiness, and
modernization problems seem to be worsening at an exponential
rate as the force shrinks, the equipment ages, and the pace of
operations mounts. The mismatch between military ends and means
is so large that the services' ability to conduct even smaller-
scale contingencies is at risk. In the committee's view, the
expanding and potentially open-ended mission in the Balkans not
only highlights these risks, but exacerbates them at the same
time.
The Committee Bill: Managing Risk
The committee's recommendations in the bill have been
shaped by the above concerns and guided in large part by the
priorities identified by the military service chiefs. The
committee's first step is to put the defense budget on somewhat
sounder fiscal footing. Thus, the committee bill increases the
President's budget request by $8.3 billion. Within this topline
increase, the committee has taken a number of steps to improve
the quality of military life, to improve the readiness of the
force, and to accelerate the pace of equipment modernization.
Major quality of life initiatives include a 4.8 percent
basic military pay raise, substantial pay table reform, and
reform of the military retirement system. The committee also
rejected the Administration's inexplicable $3.1 billion cut to
the already underfunded military construction accounts, instead
fully funding military construction at a level of $8.6 billion
to provide important improvements to the quality of military
life. The committee also increased spending on critical
readiness accounts by more than $2 billion, including
significant increases for real property maintenance and base
operations support, depot maintenance, aircraft spare parts,
combat training center operations, as well as more than $700
million for other unfunded readiness priorities identified by
the military service chiefs. The committee has also increased
funding for equipment modernization, adding approximately $4
billion to the President's underfunded budget request for
research, development, and procurement programs. Important
modernization initiatives include the addition of more than
$400 million to the Administration's request for missile
defense programs, and substantial increases to upgrade the B-2
bomber fleet, and for EA-6B, F-15, F-16, Joint Strike Fighter,
V-22, AH-64 Apache Longbow and Comanche helicopter programs.
Despite the substantial improvements this bill has made to
the President's budget request, the committee is under no
illusions concerning the rising level of risk U.S. armed forces
are facing. The committee does not believe that ``high risk''
in executing the core missions of our National Military
Strategy is acceptable. The nation is facing a dilemma that
Secretary Cohen recently articulated in testimony to the
Congress. The Secretary noted the multiple strains caused by
conducting Operation Allied Force simultaneously with having to
meet other important requirements, and commented that ``we've
got to find a way to either increase the size of our forces or
decrease the number of our missions.''
The committee believes that unless the nation fields the
forces and provides the resources required by the National
Military Strategy, the inevitable alternative is for the United
States to retreat from its global responsibilities and
interests. As it does with regard to the growing risk
confronting our military forces, the committee also believes it
is unacceptable for the United States to retreat from the
aggressive promotion and protection of our interests around the
world.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 results from extensive
hearings that began on February 2, 1999 and that were completed
on March 25, 1999. The full committee conducted 6 sessions. In
addition, a total of 26 sessions were conducted by five
different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on
various titles of the bill.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The President's $53.0 billion procurement budget request
for fiscal year 2000 represents a decrease of $1.1 billion
below the amount forecast in fiscal year 1999, $9.3 billion
below the amount first forecast in fiscal year 1996, and
continues the Department of Defense's delay in achieving the
Joint Chiefs of Staff goal of a $60.0 billion procurement
budget by three years (from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year
2001). Even before the initiation of Operation Allied Force the
service chiefs of staff were lamenting a budget that leaves
them far short of attaining their modernization requirements,
despite Congress' having added over $15.0 billion to the
procurement accounts in the past four years. The ongoing
campaign in the Balkans has only exacerbated this situation.
For example, the Army Chief of Staff testified to the
committee that ``modernization is still underfunded. What I
don't think will be fixed out of this [referring to the funding
he expects to receive in fiscal year 2000] will be the
modernization. We'll have to defer that . . . further.''
Commenting on his inability to recapitalize the fleets of naval
ships and aircraft, the Chief of Naval Operations noted, ``We
continue to compensate [for readiness and personnel needs] by
shifting resources from modernization and recapitalization
accounts to operations and support accounts.'' Even more
critical of the current predicament, he was the Commandant of
the Marine Corps, who testified that, ``As I've said for years
[our problem] is long-term procurement. I have got very great
concerns about the cancer of modernization that I must
address.'' And the Air Force Chief of Staff declared that ``if
we don't modernize by replacing aircraft that are beyond their
useful life and revitalize those with life left in them, we can
expect significant additional maintenance requirements, reduced
reliability, and increased costs as these aircraft
deteriorate.''
In order to bring the modernization problem into focus, the
committee held a hearing on the Department's fleet of aging
equipment. The Department clearly acknowledged that reduced
modernization budgets, combined with increased deployments,
have taken their toll. Its inventory of weapons is not only
aging chronologically but also technologically, as older and
overworked weapons systems continue to drain resources because
of more frequent and more expensive maintenance. Equipment
expected to leave the inventory years ago is still operational
and, in some cases, approaching nearly double expected service
lives. Yet, despite this situation, the procurement budget
continues to receive low priority.
Although much has been touted by the Department concerning
a major increase in its budget in the next six fiscal years,
the procurement accounts are not the beneficiaries of any
largesse. As noted above, the fiscal year 2000 procurement
request actually declines from the amount forecast only one
year ago. The cumulative addition to these accounts over the
next four years is projected to be only $4.1 billion-hardly a
significant part of a proposed six-year $84.0 billion overall
increase.
Unfortunately, unless a sustained increase in procurement
funding is forthcoming, the aging equipment situation will only
get worse, as the impact of Operation Allied Force is felt.
With the United States shouldering the largest share of the
burden in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's air campaign
against Yugoslavia, inventories of key precision weapons are
being depleted at much faster rates than ever anticipated;
units deployed for combat are stripping vital supplies from
U.S.-based units, contributing to a dramatic drop in their
readiness ratings; and cannibalization rates are climbing
rapidly within deployed units because of spare parts shortages.
Even with the substantial amount of additional funding provided
by the Congress in fiscal year 1999 supplemental
appropriations, the process of ``getting well'' from this
ongoing operation will be slow and likely require substantial
additional funding in the future.
Against this backdrop, the committee successfully argued
for an increase to the funds allocated for national defense in
the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution and has applied much of
this additional money to procurement. This marks the fifth
consecutive year the committee has added funds to modernize the
Department's weaponry, including:
[In millions of dollars]
Army:
UH-60L helicopters............................................ 27.0
CH-47F upgrades............................................... 56.0
AH-64D upgrades............................................... 45.0
MLRS rocket launchers......................................... 56.0
Bradley fighting vehicles upgrades............................ 72.0
M113A3 carrier mods........................................... 25.0
Small arms.................................................... 48.0
Ammunition.................................................... 55.0
Night vision devices.......................................... 33.0
Shortstop..................................................... 40.0
Communications equipment...................................... 92.0
Combat support equipment...................................... 63.0
Construction equipment........................................ 33.0
Navy/Marine Corps:
KC-130J....................................................... 252.0
MV-22......................................................... 60.0
CH-60S........................................................ 38.0
UC-35......................................................... 18.0
E/A-6B upgrades............................................... 45.0
F/A-18 series modifications................................... 63.0
P-3 series modifications...................................... 75.0
Tomahawk missiles............................................. 300.0
Joint stand-off weapon........................................ 75.0
Hellfire missiles............................................. 52.0
Joint direct attack munition.................................. 48.0
Maritime prepositioning ship-advance procurement.............. 80.0
Base telecommunications upgrades.............................. 50.0
Improve & recovery vehicle.................................... 49.0
AH-1/UH-1 upgrades............................................ 27.0
Ammunition.................................................... 75.0
Air Force:
E-8C-advance procurement...................................... 46.0
B-2 upgrades.................................................. 187.0
F-15 upgrades................................................. 50.0
F-16 upgrades................................................. 47.0
C-135 upgrades................................................ 68.0
Defense airborne reconnaissance program....................... 40.0
Joint stand-off weapon........................................ 35.0
Minuteman III upgrades........................................ 40.0
AGM-65D Maverick upgrades..................................... 10.0
Joint direct attack munition.................................. 66.0
Ammunition.................................................... 75.0
Theater deployable communications............................. 35.0
Defense-Wide:
National guard/reserve miscellaneous equipment................ 60.0
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,229.9 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,415.2 million for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AH-64 modifications
The budget request contained $22.6 million for AH-64
modifications, but included no funds for an oil debris
detection system (ODDS) or the continuation of the vibration
management enhancement program (VMEP).
The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts
aircrews to the presence of metal chips in engines and
propeller gear boxes, allowing flights to be terminated prior
to catastrophic failure of critical components. It also permits
the clearing of smaller particles that routinely accumulate in
engine oil and cause false impending engine failure alarms,
resulting in unnecessary termination of aircraft missions and
costly engine diagnostics.
The VMEP is an Army National Guard (ARNG) effort currently
directed toward resolving vibration management problems on the
ARNG's AH-64 Apache fleet, but the committee understands the
technology is also applicable to the UH-60 Blackhawk, the CH-47
Chinook, and the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. The committee continues
to support the VMEP because of its belief that such on-board
diagnostic capabilities contribute significantly to both
aircrew safety and improved aircraft reliability.
Since the ODDS, which has been successfully integrated into
many other Department of Defense aircraft, both reduces
aircraft maintenance costs and enhances aircrew safety, the
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to incorporate
the ODDS on AH-64 Apaches. The committee also recommends an
increase of $7.0 million to continue VMEP procurement for the
ARNG Apache fleet and to transition this technology to other
aircraft.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)
The budget request contained $88,000 for ASE, but included
no funds for the procurement of upgrades to the Aircraft
Survivability Equipment Trainer (ASET) IV.
ASET IV is a ground-based, mobile aviation threat emitter
simulation and training system which enables both fixed and
rotary wing aviators to recognize surface-to-air-missile (SAM)
and anti-aircraft artillery threats in order to employ the
correct aircraft evasive maneuvers. ASET IV systems are
currently fielded at major training centers throughout the
United States and Germany and require that an aircraft have a
fully operational ASE suite of sensors on board for training.
The Congress added $7.4 million in fiscal year 1998 and
$6.4 million in fiscal year 1999 for ASET IV upgrades. However,
additional validated requirements exist and several systems in
their present configuration still lack the capability to
simulate the most current infrared (IR) and radio frequency
(RF) SAM threats, thereby limiting aircrew training against
older threats-a situation which is not representative of the
Army's ``train as you fight'' concept.
Consistent with past committee actions and based on the
Army's requirement for forces to train in realistic threat
environments, the committee recommends $18.2 million, an
increase of $18.1 million for upgrading ASET IV systems with
current IR and RF SAM threat simulators.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications
The budget request contained $11.8 million for the
procurement of ASE modifications, but included no funds for AN/
AVR-2A laser detecting sets (LDS).
The LDS is the only device in the Army inventory that
provides warning to helicopter crews when they have been
illuminated by a laser-targeted weapon. It detects, identifies,
and characterizes threats 360-degrees-around and plus-or-minus
45 degrees above-and-below an aircraft. The committee is
concerned with the growing laser threat to helicopter aircrews
and notes the limited situational awareness that is currently
provided by existing AN/AVR-2A technology. The committee
understands that a quantum improvement to aircrew situational
awareness is achievable by incorporating the precise laser
azimuth and discrimination capabilities of the AN/VVR-1 ground
LDS into the AN/AVR-2A aviation LDS.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to expeditiously establish an engineering change proposal
(ECP) to integrate the precision laser azimuth and
discrimination capabilities of the AN/VVR-1 into the AN/AVR-2A
and recommends an increase of $11.5 million, which includes a
$5.5 million increase for the ECP, and, $6.0 million to procure
additional AN/AVR-2A LDS until the ECP is in production.
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications
The budget request contained $70.7 million for procurement
of CH-47 Chinook helicopter modifications.
The CH-47D, the Army's only heavy lift helicopter, is
capable of lifting multiple types of cargo weighing up to
26,000 pounds or carrying 33 personnel. The committee
understands that the average age of the CH-47 fleet is 31 years
old, yet notes that the Army has delayed the start of a
comprehensive CH-47 upgrade from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal
year 2001. However, the committee also notes that the Army
Chief of Staff has identified a $56.1 million unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2000 to accelerate fielding of
improved CH-47Ds in Korea by 30 months.
Therefore, based on the critical need to upgrade these
helicopters, the committee recommends $126.8 million, an
increase of $56.1 million for CH-47D modifications.
Longbow
The budget request contained $729.5 million to modify 74
AH-64A Apache helicopters to the AH-64D Apache Longbow
configuration and $35.7 million in advance procurement to
modify 60 aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The budget request did
not include funds to upgrade Longbow sensor and avionics
integrated circuits.
The AH-64D Apache Longbow, a day/night, all weather, heavy
attack helicopter, is capable of engaging and destroying
advanced, multiple threat armor targets on the future digital
battlefield with minimum exposure time. The committee continues
to support this upgrade. However, it notes that many of the
aircraft sensors and avionics on the Longbow were not designed
with an ``open information architecture,'' and, as a result of
the rapid rate of information technology advances driven by the
commercial information technology market, military
specification integrated circuits (IC) in these avionics and
sensors are no longer produced, resulting in processor
obsolescence.
Consequently, replacement of ICs for these components will
require redesign. The committee understands the cost of this
redesign is estimated to be $45.0 million. Therefore, the
committee recommends $45.0 million to replace obsolete Apache
Longbow ICs.
The committee is concerned that the current plan for fiscal
year 2001-the first year of a second five-year multiyear
procurement (MYP) contract for this aircraft--only includes 60
airframe upgrades--a 12 aircraft reduction from previously
approved plans. The committee understands that an additional
$4.9 million in advance procurement is needed to restore the
program to previously approved levels.
Therefore, the committee recommends $774.5 million, an
increase of $45.0 million for obsolete IC replacement, and
$40.6 million, an increase of $4.9 million for advance
procurement for 12 additional aircraft modifications in fiscal
year 2001. The committee also recommends approval of a second
five-year MYP contract.
UH-60 Blackhawk
The budget request contained $86.1 million for procurement
of eight UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters for the Army National
Guard (ARNG), of which $283,000 was included for engines and
accessories.
The UH-60 Blackhawk is the Army's primary utility
helicopter in both the active and reserve components. The
committee understands that a validated requirement for 83
additional ARNG Blackhawks remains unfilled and, therefore,
consistent with past committee actions, recommends an increase
of $27.0 million to accelerate fielding of 3 additional
Blackhawks.
The committee is aware that the Army procured 28 additional
Blackhawk engines in fiscal year 1998 and intends to use some
of these engines for the helicopters to be procured in fiscal
year 2000. Additionally, the Army provided no justification for
accessory equipment. Therefore, the committee recommends a
decrease of $283,000. In total, the committee recommends $112.8
million for UH-60L Blackhawks.
UH-60 modifications
The budget request contained $12.1 million for UH-60
modifcations, but included no funds to procure either UH-60Q
aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC) modification kits for the Army
National Guard (ARNG) or a UH-60Q medical mockup training
device.
The committee notes that new production UH-60Q MEDEVAC
aircraft are not planned to be procured until fiscal year 2002;
however, an interim capability exists through UH-60Q
modification kits, which internally reconfigure UH-60A utility
aircraft into MEDEVAC variants.
The committee also notes that while the Army plans to
procure UH-60Q aircraft in the future, it has not included
funds in the Future Years Defense Program for the one required
UH-60Q medical mockup training device. This fully functional
training device accurately replicates the interior of a UH-60Q
MEDEVAC helicopter and will provide flight medics a classroom-
based, ``hands-on,'' training capability, eliminating the
current need to use dedicated aircraft on the ground for
extended periods of time for this purpose.
Therefore, the committee recommends $22.6 million, an
increase of $9.0 million to procure UH-60Q medical evacuation
modification kits to reconfigure two ARNG UH-60A Blackhawk
helicopters and an increase of $1.5 million to accelerate
procurement of the UH-60Q medical mockup training device.
Utility/cargo airplane modifications
The budget request contained $6.3 million for avionics
modifications to the C-12 utility aircraft.
The C-12 is the Army's primary short to medium range
utility and personnel transport. The 62 aircraft in the
service's inventory are located throughout the world, and the
majority of them continue to operate with analog avionics
technology that was current at the time they were procured in
the 1970s and 1980s. Replacement of obsolete avionics with
state-of-the-art communications, navigation, surveillance and
flight management equipment will enable the aircraft to be more
easily deployed around the world to meet emerging global
requirements.
The committee is pleased that the Army has requested funds
for these safety of flight upgrades but believes additional
funds are required. Accordingly, and consistent with actions
taken in past fiscal years, the committee recommends $9.3
million, an increase of $3.0 million to more efficiently
procure C-12 avionics upgrades.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,358.1 million for Missile
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,416.0 million for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Avenger modifications
The budget request contained no funds to procure Avenger
slew-to-cue (STC) modifications.
The STC upgrade enables the Avenger turret to automatically
and rapidly slew in azimuth and elevation resulting in a 55
percent increase in target engagements. The committee
understands that existing Army National Guard (ARNG) Avenger
fire units require installation of a fire control computer with
embedded STC capability to provide the most lethal and rapid
force protection air defense capability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.3
million to upgrade one ARNG Avenger battalion with STC-capable
fire control computers.
Avenger system summary
The budget request contained $33.8 million to procure 15
Avengers for the Army National Guard (ARNG), of which $636,000
was for the installation of environmental control units/prime
power units (ECU/PPU).
The Avenger, the Army's primary mobile, short-range,
surface-to-air defense missile and antiaircraft artillery
system, is mounted on and operates off the internal power of a
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. The committee
understands that some Avenger turrets do not have a climate
control unit, resulting in either extremely high or low turret
temperatures during hot and cold weather. The committee is
aware of an ongoing ECU/PPU retrofit program, which provides
stable turret temperatures as well as an independent power
supply for the turret.
Based on the added benefits of these enhancements, the
committee recommends $35.1 million, an increase of $1.3 million
for additional ECU/PPU upgrades to ARNG Avengers.
Brilliant anti-armor (BAT) submunition
The budget request contained $149.3 million to procure 846
BAT submunitions, of which $5.0 million was included for test
and evaluation.
The committee notes that the amount of funds requested for
test and evaluation represents a 285 percent increase over the
amount that was authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1999
for 420 submunitions. Additionally, the amount planned for this
same requirement in fiscal year 2001 is only $2.3 million for a
corresponding 1,028 missiles.
The committee is concerned with this unjustified, sharp
increase in test and evaluation funds, and, therefore,
recommends a decrease of $2.7 million.
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems
The budget request contained $114.6 million for the
procurement of 47 MLRS launcher systems for the active Army,
but included no funds for the procurement of launcher systems
for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
The committee notes that the ARNG provides nearly 70
percent of the total Army's artillery fire support but further
notes that an MLRS launcher shortfall continues to exist for
ARNG units. However, the committee is aware that the Army Chief
of Staff's fiscal year 2000 unfunded requirements list included
MLRS launcher systems to fill ARNG MLRS battalion readiness
shortfalls as a top priority.
Consistent with actions taken in past fiscal years, the
committee recommends $170.1 million, an increase of $55.5
million for additional MLRS launcher systems for the ARNG.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,416.8 million for
procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for
fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,575.1 million for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Abrams upgrade program/heavy assault bridge (HAB)
The budget request contained $423.0 million to procure 120
M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) tanks and $67.3
million to procure 13 HABs, but included no funds for HAB
advance procurement.
The HAB is an 85-foot, military-load class bridge
transported on a modified M1A2 SEP tank chassis. The system is
capable of spanning up to 79-foot spaces, is deployable in five
minutes, and can be retrieved in less than ten minutes--
requirements that resulted from Army bridging system
deficiencies identified during Operation Desert Storm.
The committee notes the Secretary of the Army's request for
a second multiyear procurement (MYP) contract for the M1A2 SEP
tank beginning in fiscal year 2001 and that an estimated $118.0
million in savings is expected from the MYP contract through
fiscal year 2005. Due to the 80 percent commonality between HAB
and M1A2 hardware, the committee also notes that an estimated
$190.0 million in savings from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal
year 2005 could be achieved from the efficiencies of a combined
HAB and M1A2 MYP contract.
Based on these larger savings, the committee recommends a
combined M1A2 SEP/HAB MYP contract. The committee also
recommends an increase of $14.0 million to synchronize HAB
advance procurement in fiscal year 2000 with M1A2 SEP tank
advance procurement.
Bradley base sustainment
The budget request contained $281.1 million for the
procurement of 104 Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, but
included no funds for upgrading first-generation Bradley A0
fighting vehicles to the A2 Operation Desert Storm (ODS)
variant for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
The Bradley A2ODS variant improves the vehicle's lethality,
survivability, and mobility, as well as the situational
awareness of its crew. Modifications include installation of a
laser range finder, Global Positioning System navigation
capability, a combat identification system, a driver's thermal
viewer and a missile countermeasure device.
When the Army completes all of its planned upgrades to the
Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most
advanced A3 variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The
majority of the ARNG's Bradley fleet, on the other hand, will
remain unmodified and be comprised mainly of first-generation
A0 vehicles, which, because of major survivability
deficiencies, were not used in the Persian Gulf War. However,
as part of the new ARNG enhanced brigades, the committee notes
that some of these A0 vehicles will be required to deploy with
active Army forces.
Because ARNG enhanced brigades will comprise an increasing
percentage of the Army's warfighting capability as a result of
active force reductions, and consistent with actions taken in
past fiscal years, the committee recommends $353.1 million, an
increase of $72.0 million for modifying Bradley ``A0'' vehicles
to the A2ODS variant for the ARNG.
M113 carrier modifications
The budget request contained $53.5 million for 198 M113A3
carrier modifications.
The M113A3 upgrade program, forecast to add an additional
20 years of service life to the vehicle, includes installation
of a new engine, transmission, external fuel tanks, driver
controls, and kevlar spall liners. The committee is aware that
M113A3 upgrades are one of the Army Chief of Staff's fiscal
year 2000 top unfunded priorities.
Therefore, consistent with actions taken in past fiscal
years, the committee recommends $78.5 million, an increase of
$25.0 million for additional M113A3 upgrade kits.
M240 series medium machine gun
The budget request contained $12.2 million for the
procurement of 1,304 M240 series medium machine guns.
The M240B is the infantry version of the vehicle-mounted
M240 machine gun and replaces the older M60 series machine gun
in light and mechanized infantry and combat engineer units. The
committee notes that the Army has a validated requirement for
over 6,000 M240Bs to upgrade its current inventory of 7.62mm
machine guns.
Therefore, consistent with actions taken in past fiscal
years, the committee recommends $40.0 million, an increase of
$27.8 million to accelerate the fielding of M240B medium
machine guns.
M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of M249 SAW machine guns.
The M249 SAW is a lightweight weapon capable of delivering
a sustained volume of automatic, accurate, and highly lethal
fire up to ranges of 800 meters. This highly mobile machine gun
is being widely fielded throughout the Army to airborne, light
and mechanized infantry, as well as air cavalry units. The
committee is concerned that the Army has eliminated funds for
this weapon throughout the Future Years Defense Program, yet an
unfunded requirement for nearly 8,000 SAWs exists. Therefore,
the committee recommends $10.1 million to continue procurement
of M249 SAWs to reduce this shortfall.
MK19-3 grenade launcher
The budget request contained $18.3 million to procure 1,085
MK19-3 grenade launchers.
The MK19-3 is a 40 millimeter automatic grenade launcher
capable of engaging point targets up to 1,500 meters and
providing suppressive fire up to 2,200 meters in range. This
infantry weapon can also be mounted on armored vehicles and
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles.
The committee notes that the Army has an unfulfilled
requirement of over 3,600 MK19-3s and that there are critical
shortages of this weapon in European-, Republic of Korea-, and
continental United States-based units. The committee also notes
this weapon's increased importance in military operations in
urban terrain (MOUT) and close combat operations.
Because of the MK19-3's critical shortages and the fact
that United States military forces are increasingly being
deployed into MOUT and potential close combat situations, the
committee recommends $28.3 million, an increase of $10.0
million to accelerate procurement of MK19-3 grenade launchers.
Ammunition Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,140.8 million for
Ammunition Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,196.2 million for fiscal year
2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Ammunition
The budget request contained $987.0 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $1,037.0 million, an
increase of $50.0 million for the following types of
ammunition, which include top unfunded priorities of the Chief
of Staff of the Army for fiscal year 2000:
[In millions of dollars]
Small/Medium Cal Ammunition:
CTG 25mm All Types............................................ 2.0
CTG 40mm All Types............................................ 8.0
Mortar Ammunition:
CTG 120mm Illum XM930 w/MTSQ FZ............................... 5.0
CTG 120mm WP Smoke M929A1..................................... 5.0
Artillery Ammunition:
CTG Arty 105mm DPICM XM915.................................... 5.0
Mines:
Mine, Antitank (Volcano)...................................... 10.0
Rockets:
Bunker Defeating Munition..................................... 10.0
Grenade, All Types:
Smoke Screening, XM 90........................................ 5.0
Hydra 70 rockets
The budget request contained $144.8 million for Hydra 70
rockets.
The committee acknowledges the Army's actions to identify
and eliminate the problem of early motor blows (EMB)
experienced by the Hydra 70 from 1992 to 1995. The committee
asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a review of the
service's ongoing inspection program and was generally pleased
with the information it received. However, the committee
understands that because some of the Army's Hydra 70 rockets
are prepositioned on ships and in-theater, they will not be
accessible for inspection before the current inspection
contract expires in November 1999. Given the potential threat
EMBs pose to aircraft and crew, the committee urges the Army to
extend this contract and make every reasonable effort to
inspect the entire inventory of Hydra 70 rockets that could
experience this problem.
Provision of industrial facilities
The budget request contained $46.1 million for Army
ammunition plant (AAP) future project design, obsolete
production line equipment replacement, and environmental
deficiencies and infrastructure corrections, of which $9.1
million was for production line and facility upgrades to Iowa
AAP. However, the budget request did not include non-recurring
engineering costs for the 120 millimeter (mm) tank ammunition
load, assemble, and pack (LAP) production line enhancements at
this plant.
The committee is aware of the Army's future plans to
improve the Iowa AAP production line, resulting in increased
efficiency, safety, and reliability, as well as production line
output. However, based on the implementation timeline of these
plans, an estimated $4.7 million in annual savings is not
expected to accrue until fiscal year 2004.
The committee understands that a $5.4 million increase in
non-recurring engineering for the LAP production line will
accelerate these enhancements. Therefore, the committee
recommends $51.5 million, an increase of $5.4 million for this
purpose.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $3,423.9 million for Other
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends
authorization of $3,799.9 million for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Area common user system (ACUS) modification program
The budget request contained $109.1 million for the ACUS
modification program in order to support its migration to the
Warfighter Information Network (WIN) systems architecture, but
included no funds for the procurement of high speed
multiplexers (HSMUX) for Army National Guard (ARNG) signal
brigades.
The WIN architecture will seamlessly link the Army's
diverse information systems on the 21st century digitized
battlefield. HSMUX will provide increased bandwidth to the WIN
in response to the growing demand for video and data in the
battlefield tactical communications environment. As part of the
echelon above and below corps force support packages, ARNG
signal brigades will be required to deploy with these early
entry units; however, they will not be able to provide state-
of-the-art video and data communications support without HSMUX
upgrades.
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified the ACUS modification program as a fiscal year 2000
top unfunded priority. In response to this requirement, the
committee recommends $110.0 million, an increase of $900,000 to
procure and field HSMUX upgrades to ARNG signal brigades.
Army data distribution system (ADDS)
The budget request contained $38.8 million to procure 1,280
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) radios, but
included no funds for the procurement of EPLRS for the Army
National Guard (ARNG).
The EPLRS radio is the Army's and Marine Corps' primary
position location reporting system, providing battlefield
commanders combat information on the position of their forces
in addition to supporting the majority of the services' data
communications requirements for brigade and below tactical
command and control. The system provides secure, jam-resistant,
near-real-time communications and is essential to support
tactical operations on the battlefield.
The committee notes that procurement and fielding of
additional EPLRS is on both the Army Chief of Staff's and
Commandant of the Marine Corps' fiscal year 2000 unfunded
priorities lists. The committee also notes that ARNG enhanced
brigades must have the necessary data communications
capabilities to operate alongside active Army units.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $64.7 million, an
increase of $25.9 million for the procurement of EPLRS for ARNG
enhanced brigades. The committee also recommends $103.2
million, an increase of $20.3 million to procure of EPLRS for
the Marine Corps.
Artillery accuracy equipment
The budget request contained $4.3 million to procure the
Artillery Muzzle Velocity System, but included no funds to
procure the Meteorological Measuring System (MMS). The MMS
provides data to field artillery units that improves firing
accuracy. The committee is encouraged that the Army plans to
procure 14 MMSs for the Army National Guard (ARNG) in fiscal
year 2001, however, it recognizes that accelerated fielding of
MMS to the ARNG would benefit total Army mission requirements
since the ARNG provides nearly 70 percent of the total Army's
artillery fire support.
Therefore, the committee recommends $7.3 million for
artillery accuracy equipment, an increase of $3.0 million to
accelerate procurement of the MMS for the ARNG.
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)
The budget request contained $138.6 million for procurement
of ADPE, of which $38.9 million was included for the
procurement of Major Army Command (MACOM) automation systems
and $4.2 million was for automatic identification technology
(AIT).
The committee notes a 27 percent increase in the amount
requested for MACOM automation systems over the amount
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1999 and believes
this growth to be excessive. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $4.5 million for production of these
systems.
AIT devices, which consist of various radio frequency (RF),
bar code scanning, and data carrier devices, are used as
components of automated logistics systems, contributing to
expedited receiving, storage, distribution, and inventory
management of new and repairable items. For example, the
committee understands that RF tagging devices are currently
used in a pilot program implemented at six locations worldwide
in fiscal year 1998 to track ammunition from point of origin to
place of destination. The committee understands that these
devices are also used to automate manufacturing process
controls for aircraft repair parts and to track ground support
equipment at various military depots.
The committee is impressed with the promising results
achieved to date with RF tagging devices and believes that
substantial savings can be achieved from further implementation
of these devices in automated inventory and repair processes.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0
million for ammunition AIT integration efforts and $8.7 million
for maintenance AIT implementation. In total, the committee
recommends $153.8 million for ADPE.
Combat support medical
The budget request contained $25.3 million for the
procurement of deployable medical systems and field medical
equipment, but included no funds for the procurement of the
advanced surgical suite for trauma casualties (ASSTC) for the
Army National Guard (ARNG).
The ASSTC is a lightweight, highly mobile, self-contained
medical facility for on-scene triage, minor surgery, diagnostic
and preventive medical treatment, which can also be used for
life-saving, resuscitative surgery for 20 casualties. It is
capable of operating independently for up to 48 hours in
support of contingency operations and disaster relief.
Based on the ARNG's evolving role as ``first responders''
to weapons of mass destruction and domestic terrorist
incidents, and its requirement to deploy in response to natural
disasters, the committee recommends $40.3 million, an increase
of $15.0 million for the procurement of ASSTCs for the ARNG.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles
The budget request contained $190.4 million to procure
palletized load systems and related equipment, heavy expanded
transporter system trucks, and heavy repair vehicles, of which
$36.8 million was for 119 M984 heavy expanded mobility tactical
truck (HEMTT) wreckers. However, no HEMTT wreckers were
requested for the Army Reserve (AR). The HEMTT wrecker is a 10-
ton, diesel-powered, eight-wheel drive vehicle designed to
retrieve other heavy wheeled combat and support vehicles.
The committee notes that the AR's evolving combat support
and combat service support mission requirements necessitate the
need for HEMTT wreckers.
Therefore, the committee recommends $196.4 million, an
increase of $6.0 million for 21 HEMTT wreckers for the AR.
General purpose vehicles
The budget request contained $1.0 million for the
procurement of general purpose vehicles, but included no funds
for the procurement of Military (M) Gators.
The M Gator is a low cost, air-deployable, multipurpose
vehicle designed for transport of logistics equipment and
personnel on the battlefield and in urban terrain. The
committee understands that the XVIII Airborne Corps has
submitted an urgent operational needs statement for procurement
of 600 M Gators to the Chief of Staff of the Army and that an
operational requirements document is currently being staffed.
The committee also understands that this vehicle has been
extensively tested and used by both the Army and Special
Operations Command in Bosnia and in the Middle East.
Therefore, to fill the XVIII Airborne Corps' urgent
operational needs, the committee recommends $13.0 million, an
increase of $12.0 for M Gators.
High speed compactor
The budget request contained $9.8 million to procure 67
815F high-speed compactors. The 815F high-speed compactor is a
commercially produced, self-propelled, diesel powered, tamping
machine used to build roads, airfields, and dams. The committee
notes that the amount in this budget request would enable the
service to reach 199 of its 212 vehicle acquisition objective
but that the remaining vehicles are not planned to be procured
until fiscal year 2005.
The committee believes that meeting the acquisition
objective should be accelerated and, therefore, recommends
$12.4 million, an increase of $2.6 million for this purpose.
Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of upgrades for the Hunter UAV.
The Hunter UAV is the Army's only operational UAV system
and is used to develop corps-, division-, and brigade-level
tactics, techniques, and procedures, and is also available for
worldwide contingency operations. It is currently deployed to
the Balkans as part of Operation Allied Force supporting North
Atlantic Treaty Organization operations.
The committee understands that the fielded Hunter systems
have only partially received hardware and software upgrades
which improve their operational effectiveness and reduce
operations and support costs. Additional Hunter systems being
readied for fielding and those in storage have not been
similarly upgraded.
The committee believes that the Hunter UAV system will play
a major role in tactics development and the enhancement of
battlefield commander's tactical awareness until the follow-on
Tactical UAV is fielded.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million to provide these upgrades to the Hunter UAV inventory.
Information system security program (ISSP)
The budget request contained a total of $28.8 million,
$64.1 million, and $13.3 million to procure secure voice and
data terminal equipment for the Army, Navy, and Air Force
respectively.
The committee understands that the services are replacing
older secure voice and data systems with newer multi-media
secure digital communications equipment and that the systems
available today provide significant operations and maintenance
savings over legacy systems.
Therefore, in order to accelerate the replacement of
obsolete secure voice and data terminals, the committee
recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure additional
secure terminal equipment: $3.0 million for the Army ISSP, $3.0
million for the Navy ISSP, and $3.0 million for the Air Force
command, control, and communications countermeasures program.
Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)
The budget request contained $41.6 million to procure IFTE,
including $12.7 million for 4 IFTE electro-optic test
facilities (EOTF).
The EOTF provides automatic electro-optics (EO) test and
diagnostic support and is capable of satisfying the full range
of Army EO test requirements. These facilities will replace
existing electronic equipment repair facilities and the
committee understands that they will initially support the OH-
58D Kiowa Warrior and the Improve Target Acquisition System
(ITAS).
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff identified
a fiscal year 2000 unfunded priority for additional EOTFs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $51.6 million, an
increase of $10.0 million to procure additional EOTFs for Kiowa
Warrior and ITAS support.
Items less than $2.0 million (construction equipment)
The budget request contained $4.3 million to procure
various construction equipment items less than $2.0 million,
but included no funds to procure ultimate building machines.
The ultimate building machine system is a highly mobile steel
fabrication mechanism which can be rapidly set up to construct
complex steel structures in support of field operations and
interim shelter requirements.
The committee notes that each of the services has had
additional requirements placed on its engineer support and
construction units as a result of increased deployments for
contingency, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief
operations. The committee recognizes the benefits that easily
and rapidly constructed shelters contribute to these types of
operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends $6.3 million, an
increase of $2.0 million to procure ultimate building machines
for the Army and the Army National Guard. The committee also
recommends an increase of $1.0 million each for procurement of
these machines by the Navy, Marine Corps, Air National Guard,
and Air Force Reserve.
Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS) common
ground station (CGS)
The budget request contained $82.2 million to procure 12
Joint STARS CGSs, of which $6.0 million was included for pre-
planned product improvements (P3I).
The Joint STARS CGS improves ground commanders' battlefield
command and control capability by integrating into a single
station the processing of signals, imagery, and other
intelligence received through a data link from the Air Force's
E-8 Joint STARS aircraft radar. The system detects, locates,
tracks, and classifies both moving and stationary targets
beyond the forward line of troops. The P3I program provides the
Joint STARS an expanded capability to interface with additional
airborne intelligence assets while incorporating joint message
processing and information security upgrades.
The committee is aware of the proven success of the CGS and
believes the P3I upgrades will greatly enhance the ground
commanders' situational awareness. Therefore, the committee
recommends $112.2 million for Joint STARS CGS, an increase of
$30.0 million for these upgrades.
Lightweight video reconnaissance system (LVRS)
The budget request contained $3.4 million to procure 145
LVRSs.
The LVRS consists of a small, ruggedized, open architecture
processor and generation III image intensification night
vision-capable video camera/recorder. The system allows special
operations forces (SOF) and light force scout and
reconnaissance units to photograph, record, and transmit near
real-time video images over Single Channel Ground and Airborne
Radio Systems from forward deployed field positions back to
tactical operations centers. It facilitates rapid target
identification and analysis critical to mission planning and
execution on the digitized battlefield and in urban
environments. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff
identified a $2.5 million unfunded requirement for fiscal year
2000 to procure an additional 268 LVRSs for SOF and light
forces.
Therefore, the committee recommends $5.9 million, an
increase of $2.5 million to procure 268 additional LVRSs.
M56 smoke generator system
The budget request contained $6.3 million for the
procurement of 14 M56 smoke generator systems.
The M56 smoke generator system, the primary battlefield
obscurant for Army light forces, is a High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle-mounted system capable of
disseminating smoke in both stationary positions and on the
move. The M56 can defeat enemy sensors such as tank thermal
sights as well as smart and guided munitions which operate in
the visual through far infrared portions of the electromagnetic
spectrum.
The committee understands that the M56 has been designated
as an essential item of equipment for early entry forces. The
committee further understands that while the Army's force
package one units have a requirement of 300 of these smoke
generators, only 25 have been funded in fiscal years 2000 and
2001. Therefore, the committee recommends $22.3 million, an
increase of $16.0 million for additional M56 smoke generator
systems.
Modification of in-service equipment
The budget request contained $24.9 million for upgrades to
various marine vessels and onboard equipment, construction, and
logistic vehicles, but included no funds to conduct an Army
National Guard (ARNG) D-7 dozer service life extension program
(SLEP).
The committee understands that the majority of the
currently fielded ARNG D-7 dozers have an average fleet age of
27 years, well beyond their intended 15 year service lives and
that there are no plans to replace the D-7s. The committee
notes that a reserve component D-7 dozer limited rebuild
program was initiated in fiscal year 1995, but that a more
extensive SLEP which would extend the D-7 service life and
eliminate its ``unsatisfactory'' readiness rating is not
contemplated in the Future Years Defense Program. This, despite
the greater demand placed on overage D-7 dozers by increased
``operations-other-than-war'' deployments.
Therefore, the committee recommends $34.9 million, an
increase of $10.0 million for an ARNG D-7 dozer SLEP.
Modification of in-service equipment (tactical surveillance)
The budget request contained $6.5 million to procure fire
support digitization hardware and software upgrades for the AN/
TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder radars, but included no funds
to procure additional AN/TPQ-36 radars.
The AN/TPQ-36 is a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
Vehicle-mounted, phased-array, X-band radar, which locates
mortars and short-range rocket launchers. The system transmits
near-real time target data to friendly artillery elements
enabling these units to rapidly engage the targeted mortars and
rocket launchers with counterfire.
The committee notes that the Army does not plan to resume
procurement of AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radars until fiscal year
2002 and is concerned both with this two-year break in
production and the force protection implications related to it.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $11.5 million, an
increase of $5.0 million to continue procurement of AN/TPQ-36
Firefinder radars.
Night vision devices
The budget request contained $21.0 million for the
procurement of night vision devices, of which $19.0 million was
included for 4,550 AN/PVS-7D night vision goggles, but included
no funds for the procurement of generation III 25 millimeter
(mm) image intensification tubes.
The AN/PVS-7D night vision goggle is a head- or helmet-
mounted, third-generation, image intensifying, device used by
soldiers for nighttime operations. The committee notes that the
Army acquisition objective for this device has increased by
100,000 units since fiscal year 1998 to 381,000; however, at
the end of fiscal year 1999 only 194,409 units will have been
procured. The committee also notes that the ``Own the Night''
concept--the Army's strategy of fighting, dominating and
winning battles during nighttime operations--remains as one of
the Army Chief of Staff's top priorities.
The committee is aware of the joint Army/Navy/Marine Corps
program to procure generation III 25mm image intensification
tubes as replacements for less capable generation II tubes
fielded in the AN/PVS-4 and AN/TVS-5 night vision goggles and
notes that the generation III tubes provide a minimum 25
percent resolution increase.
The committee is aware that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified several fiscal year 2000 unfunded requirements, two
of which are, $8.0 million for AN/PVS-7D night vision goggles
and $25.0 million for generation III 25mm image intensification
tubes.
Based on existing shortfalls, the enhanced operational
capability that night vision devices provide to combat forces,
and the committee's belief that these devices will provide a
pivotal ``force multiplier'' in future Army deployments, the
committee recommends $8.0 million for AN/PVS-7D night vision
goggles and $25.0 million for generation III 25mm image
intensification tubes, for a total increase of $33.0million for
these devices.
Nonsystems training devices
The budget request contained $67.4 million to procure
nonsystem training devices, but included no funds to procure
the area weapons scoring system (AWSS), improved moving target
simulator (IMTS) upgrades, or the deployable force-on-force
instrumented range system (DFIRST).
The AWSS is an electronic aerial gunnery scoring system
used to accurately score helicopter units in day/night, live
fire air-to-ground gunnery training. The committee notes that
this type of training is directly related to the readiness of
attack helicopter aircrews, especially for short-notice combat
operations such as Operation Allied Force. The committee
understands that the Army procured three AWSSs in fiscal year
1991, however, these systems are capable of supporting only 40
percent of the total Army's training requirement. The committee
further understands that a validated requirement for three
additional systems has existed since fiscal year 1995, yet none
of these has been procured.
The 360 degree, high-resolution IMTS is an Army and Marine
Corps air defense simulation system which trains personnel on
Stinger surface-to-air missile operations and launch
proficiency. The committee is aware of IMTS upgrades that would
provide computer-generated targets, variable scenario computer-
generated background video images, and computer workstations
for modeling air defense encounters. The committee understands
that these upgrades would enhance both Army and Marine Corps
air defense forces' operational proficiency by providing rapid,
effective, real-world training prior to deploying into
potential combat situations.
The committee understands that the DFIRST Global
Positioning System satellite-based instrumentation system for
mounted maneuver training exercises would contribute
significantly to the furtherance of the Army National Guard's
(ARNG) regional home station instrumentation training plan.
This plan calls for force-on-force, simulation-based training
at a number of regional centers that would produce experiences
for ARNG units comparable to those received at the Army's
combat training centers. The committee notes the impressive
results obtained during the DFIRST evaluation and believes that
this system will not only increase the readiness of ARNG units
through more effective training but do so at a lower cost and
with greater safety than is currently done.
Therefore, the committee recommends $80.7 million, an
increase of $3.8 million to procure three AWSSs; $1.5 million
for three Army IMTS upgrades; $1.0 million for an ARNG IMTS
upgrade; and, an increase of $7.0 million to field two DFIRST
regional ARNG training sites. In total, the committee
recommends $13.3 for nonsystems training devices for the Army
and ARNG. The committee also recommends an increase of $1.0
million for a Marine Corps IMTS upgrade.
Product improved (PI) combat vehicle crewman (CVC) headset
The budget request contained no funds to procure PI CVC
headsets.
The committee understands that loss of communications in
CVC headsets was identified in late fiscal year 1998 during
armored vehicle Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below
(FBCB2) testing and evaluation. Army testing revealed that
electromagnetic interference (EMI) created by new, higher
powered Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems
installed in armored vehicles to transmit FBCB2 data creates
these communication problems. The committee believes that such
communication problems could endanger crews as a result of not
receiving complete command and control information and data
transmissions in a high operational tempo or combat
environment.
Since the PI CVC headset eliminates EMI communication
losses, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million
to procure PI CVC headsets to address this safety issue.
Ribbon bridge
The budget request contained $12.1 million to procure
ribbon bridge equipment, but included no funds to procure this
equipment for Army National Guard (ARNG) multi-role bridge
companies (MRBC).
Ribbon bridge equipment consists of 10-ton, 8-wheel drive
M1977 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Common Bridge
Transporters, M15 Bridge Adaptor Pallets, and M14 Improved Boat
Cradles. The committee understands that seven ARNG MRBC are
being established in fiscal year 2001 using existing engineer
bridging equipment and older, lower capacity five-ton trucks.
Without increased funds, these new ARNG units will not begin
conversion to the new equipment required for MRBC until fiscal
year 2004.
Therefore, the committee recommends $25.6 million for
ribbon bridging equipment, an increase of $13.5 million to
accelerate the fielding of one ARNG MRBC.
Shortstop
The budget request contained no funds to procure the
Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS).
The SEPS is a commercial electronics radio frequency
countermeasure system that protects personnel and high value
assets from artillery, mortar rounds, and rockets by detonating
their proximity fuzes well before they impact. Developed as a
quick reaction capability system, SEPS was deployed during
Operation Desert Storm and more recently in Operation Joint
Endeavor. The committee understands that initial Army testing
of 5,000 rounds fired at the SEPS resulted in a 100 percent
pre-detonation success rate and that follow-on tests against
both artillery and rockets were also highly successful.
The committee notes that, although the theater commanders-
in-chief have submitted urgent SEPS requirements, the Army has
failed to fund this system for the fourth straight year. The
Commander, United States Army Forces Europe has submitted the
most recent such requirement for over 200 SEPS to support
Balkan operations. In consideration of this requirement, in
recognition of the fact that SEPS is also one of the Army Chief
of Staff's fiscal year 2000 top unfunded priorities, and
consistent with actions taken in past fiscal years, the
committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for the
procurement of additional SEPS. The committee also recommends
an increase of $4.0 million for the Marine Corps to ensure that
Marine expeditionary forces have adequate protection from
proximity-fuzed artillery rounds, mortars, and rockets.
Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family
The budget request contained $13.2 million for the fielding
of SINCGARS, but included no funds to procure SINCGARS advanced
system improvement program (ASIP) radios for the Army National
Guard (ARNG).
The SINCGARS ASIP radio upgrades earlier version, voice-
only radios and includes a tactical Internet controller and
integrated communications security enhancements, which provides
commanders a highly reliable, easily maintained, secure voice
and data handling command and control capability. The committee
is aware of the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirement for
5,100 SINCGARS ASIP radios for force package three, which
includes the ARNG. The committee understands that without these
radios, ARNG forces will be unable to transmit to and receive
data from their active Army components when operating together.
Therefore, consistent with prior fiscal years, the
committee recommends $60.4 million, an increase of $47.2
million to procure SINCGARS ASIP radios for the ARNG.
Small pusher tug
The budget request contained no funds to procure small
pusher tugs.
The small pusher tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin
propeller vessel designed to tow general cargo barges in
harbors, inland waterways, and along coastlines. It is also
capable of assisting larger tugs in docking and undocking ships
of all sizes, movement of floating cranes and machine shops,
and performing line handling duties.
The committee is aware of the Army's intent to replace its
unreliable 40-year old small tugs that were used in Operations
Desert Shield and Desert Storm and understands that it has
recently increased its requirement for seven additional tugs to
replace these older vessels. The committee included an increase
of $4.7 million in fiscal year 1999 to procure two additional
tugs to complete the earlier requirement of eight tugs.
However, the committee notes that the Army has not budgeted for
the additional seven new tugs in its Future Years Defense
Program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million to accelerate procurement of three vessels towards the
new Army requirement.
Standard teleoperating kit
The budget request contained $4.0 million to procure 12
Standardized Robotic System (SRS) vehicle teleoperating kits.
The SRS kit can be installed on existing tracked,
construction, or wheeled vehicles to enable them to be operated
by remote control, if circumstances dictate, to clear mines.
The committee understands that SRS contingency sets have been
responsible for detonating hundreds of mines while deployed in
Bosnia.
The committee notes that redesigned combat engineer force
structure requires SRS equipment at all force levels, but that
the Army only intends to procure 12 kits in a ``one-time buy''
during fiscal year 2000. The committee disagrees with the
Army's procurement strategy for this equipment and recommends
$24.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million for additional SRS
kits.
Super high frequency (SHF) terminal
The budget request contained $32.0 million for the
procurement of 13 SHF Tri-Band Advanced Range Extension
Terminals (STAR-T). The STAR-T is a High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle-mounted, multi-channel, tactical tri-band
satellite terminal capable of operating with both commercial
and military SHF satellites.
The committee understands that the system has experienced
an eight month delay in its initial operational test and
evaluation as a result of contractor team restructuring, a
$20.0 million cost overrun; program complexities with the
integration of asynchronous transfer mode, integrated services
digital network and Internet routing capability; and antennae
design, and power amplification problems. As a result of this
delay, the Milestone III procurement decision will not be made
until September 2000.
The committee is concerned with these problems but
recommends the amount requested. However, the committee expects
the Secretary of the Army to report to the Congressional
defense committees about any further complications and delays
with the program and such recommendations as he may deem
appropriate for dealing with them.
Vibratory self-propelled roller
The budget request contained no funds to procure vibratory
self-propelled rollers. The vibratory self-propelled roller is
a commercial compacting vehicle used to support construction of
airfields, logistic areas, and roads required to deploy and
sustain Army forces.
The committee notes that the last major procurement of this
equipment occurred in the early 1980s and that its 22-year
average age, combined with increased deployments, has reduced
its readiness ratings to unsatisfactory levels. The committee
also notes that the Army Chief of Staff identified the
replacement of vibratory self-propelled rollers for both the
active and reserve components as a fiscal year 2000 unfunded
priority.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.3
million to procure additional vibratory self-propelled rollers:
$5.3 million for active Army units, and $5.0 million for Army
Reserve units.
Wheel-mounted 25-ton crane
The budget request contained $12.1 million to procure 47
wheel-mounted, 25-ton all-terrain cranes (ATECs), but no ATECs
were requested for the Army Reserve (AR).
The ATEC is a multi-use, state-of-the-art, commercial all-
terrain crane used for engineer construction excavation,
lifting and loading general supplies and materiel, and bridging
movement. The ATEC replaces three existing cranes, which range
in age from 19 to 30 years old and suffer from low operational
readiness rates and high operations and support costs with a
single, state-of-the-art unit that exceeds all three obsolete
cranes' capabilities and mobility characteristics.
The committee notes the importance of ATECs in fulfilling
Army Reserve combat support and combat service support mission
requirements and recommends $20.1 million, an increase of $8.0
million to procure ATECs for the Army Reserve.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,169.0 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends authorization of no funds for fiscal
year 2000.
Item of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
The budget request contained $1,169.0 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.
Section 1412(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99-145) requires that funds
for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions, including funds for military construction
projects necessary to carrying out the demilitarization
program, shall be set forth in the budget of the Department of
Defense as a separate program and shall not be included in the
budget accounts for any military department.
The committee reaffirms its belief that funds for the
chemical demilitarization program must be authorized and
appropriated in a defense-wide budget account in order to
emphasize that destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile is
a national issue, which affects all of the Department of
Defense, not just a single military service. Section 1412(f)
was intended to keep this funding separate in order to prevent
it from being subject to internal service budget priorities and
to avoid artificially inflating the budgets of any of the
military departments. The committee believes that the reasoning
behind the legislative mandate was sound in 1986, when the
estimated life cycles cost of the chemical stockpile
demilitarization program was approximately $1.5 billion, and is
even more valid today, when the estimated cost of the program
has grown almost ten-fold.
Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of
$1,169.0 million. The committee recommends an increase of
$1,012.0 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $8,228.7 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends
authorization of $8,804.1 million for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
CH-60S
The budget request contained $208.5 million for 13 CH-60S
helicopters and $73.8 million for advance procurement of 18 CH-
60S helicopters in fiscal year 2001.
The CH-60S replaces the H-46, H-1, H-3, and HH-60
helicopters, which meet combat support taskings for vertical
replenishment, cargo and personnel transfer, medical
evacuation, and search and rescue. The committee notes that the
Chief of Naval Operations included additional CH-60S
helicopters in his unfunded priority list for fiscal year 2000,
of which two would be assigned to the Naval Reserve.
Consequently, the committee recommends $246.5 million, an
increase of $38.0 million for two additional CH-60S helicopters
for the Naval Reserve.
Common data link (CDL)
The budget request contained $28.8 million for
modifications to special project aircraft, of which $2.0
million was included for the CDL.
The CDL, consisting of aircraft and ground terminals,
allows special project P-3 aircraft to transfer data between
shore- and sea-based intelligence communication systems. The
committee understands that the Navy requires two ground
terminals and all four special project P-3 aircraft to be
configured with the CDL, but the budget request included
sufficient funding for only one ground terminal and
installation of equipment on two aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends $30.8 million, an
increase of $2.0 million for one additional CDL ground terminal
and to procure and install the CDL equipment on the remaining
two special project P-3 aircraft.
Common ground equipment
The budget request contained $413.7 million for common
ground equipment.
The committee notes an approximately 30 percent increase in
the budget request for common ground equipment when compared to
previous and future years. The committee also notes that cost,
schedule, and contractor data is not provided in the
Department's budget justification material for such equipment.
Based on the information provided, the committee believes that
the request exceeds requirements by $20.0 million and,
therefore, recommends $393.7 million, a decrease of $20
million.
E-2 modifications
The budget request contained $28.2 million for E-2
modifications, but included no funds to upgrade the E-2C
aircraft fleet to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
The Hawkeye 2000 modification upgrades the E-2C aircraft
with satellite communications; a commercial-off-the-shelf,
high-capacity mission computer and associated workstations; and
cooperative engagement capability. The committee understands
that this modification will provide the E-2C fleet with a
quantum leap in situational awareness and fleet-wide
connectivity and that two aircraft are available to accept this
modification in fiscal year 2000.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0
million: $15.0 million for non-recurring engineering and $30.0
million for the modification of two aircraft to the Hawkeye
2000 configuration.
EA-6B modifications
The budget request contained $161.0 million for EA-6B
modifications, but included no funds for the band 9/10
transmitter/receiver upgrade.
The band 9/10 transmitter/receiver upgrade is designed to
counter the high-frequency radar techniques of a new family of
electronic threats. In recognition of this emerging
requirement, the committee recommended an increase of $39.0
million for fiscal year 1999 and the Congress appropriated
$20.0 million for this purpose. Additionally, the committee
notes that the Department has an inventory objective of 196
band 9/10 transmitter/receiver systems but currently plans to
procure only 120. The committee understands that the existing
band 9 transmitter is based on 1960's technology and that the
cost to maintain these systems through 2015 is approximately
$25.0 million.
Consistent with its previous actions, the committee
recommends $206.0 million, an increase of $45.0 million to
procure additional band 9/10 transmitter/receivers for the EA-
6B.
F-18 series modifications
The budget request contained $308.8 million for F-18 series
modifications, of which $35.1 million was included for
engineering change proposal (ECP)-583 kits to modify four
Marine Corps F/A-18A aircraft.
The ECP-583 modification kit upgrades the avionics and
weapons capability of the F/A-18A to the same capability as the
newer F/A-18C. Without this capability, the F/A-18A cannot
autonomously deliver precision-guided munitions or employ the
AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. Despite the
fact that the Marine Corps has a requirement to upgrade 76 of
its F/A-18As with this modification, the Department only
budgeted to upgrade 24 aircraft in its Future Years Defense
Program.
Since the Commandant of the Marine Corps identified ECP-583
among his highest unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000, the
committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million to procure 14
additional upgrade kits: 7 for the active and 7 for the reserve
components.
F/A-18E/F
The budget request contained $2,692.0 million for 36 F/A-
18E/F aircraft, and $162.2 million for advance procurement of
42 aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The committee notes that the
36 aircraft requested would begin a five-year, 222 aircraft
multiyear procurement through fiscal year 2004 which is
projected to cost 7.4 percent less than annual procurement of
these aircraft.
During the past two years, the committee has expressed its
concerns with the F/A-18E/F program due to its higher cost for
a relatively small capability increase when compared to the
existing F/A-18C/D aircraft. As a result of prior year
testimony by the Department's Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation, the committee has also expressed concern that the
final production configuration may not be determined until the
completion of the aircraft's operational evaluation in October
1999 and that deficiencies in survivablility and radar jamming
systems may not be corrected until after full-rate production
begins. However, the committee supports the Navy's requirement
to replace its aging fighter attack aircraft fleet and believes
that the Department's proposed multiyear procurement should
proceed if the aircraft demonstrates that it meets key
performance parameters and requirements for effectiveness and
suitability upon completion of the operational evaluation and
can be procured at the Department's projected 7.4 percent
multiyear contract cost savings.
Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (Section
121) that would limit the Secretary of the Navy's authority to
enter into the multiyear contract until the Secretary of
Defense certifies that the results of the aircraft's
operational test and evaluation meet both key performance
parameters and requirements for operational effectiveness and
suitability and that the multiyear procurement contract cost is
at least 7.4 percent less than procurement of the same number
of aircraft would be through annually funded contracts. Since
the committee understands that the five-year multiyear contract
award date is scheduled for April 2000, it believes that the
Department will be afforded ample time to review and assess the
results of the F/A-18E/F's operational evaluation prior to the
Secretary's certification to the congressional defense
committees.
Joint primary air training system (JPATS)
The budget request contained $44.8 million for 8 T-6A
aircraft and associated ground training systems, and $9.6
million for advance procurement of 24 aircraft in fiscal year
2001.
The JPATS, consisting of the T-6A aircraft and a ground-
based training system, will be used by both the Navy and Air
Force for primary pilot training. The committee notes that the
Navy has budgeted $1.0 million for engineering change orders
(ECO), but the Air Force included no funds for this purpose.
Since the Navy and Air Force T-6A are the same aircraft, the
committee does not understand how one service's aircraft
requires ECOs and the other's does not.
Consequently, the committee recommends $43.8 million, a
decrease of $1.0 million.
KC-130J
The budget request contained $12.3 million for KC-130J
support costs, but included no funds for procurement of KC-130J
aircraft.
The KC-130J is a tactical transport aircraft that also
serves as a tanker for both helicopters and tactical fighters.
The KC-130J replaces the Marine Corps' existing KC-130F, R, and
T model aircraft, providing a 40 percent increase in range, a
25 percent higher cruise ceiling, a 21 percent increase in
maximum speed, and a 41 percent decrease in take-off distance
over the existing older models.
The Marine Corps currently has an inventory of 35 KC-130Fs,
14 KC-130Rs, and 28 KC-130Ts. The KC-130F, which was procured
between 1960 and 1962, is the oldest aircraft in the inventory
and is approaching the end of its service life. The committee
understands that a December 1998 assessment of the KC-130F
fleet revealed that, unless procurement of KC-130Js is
accelerated or a comprehensive and costly service life
extension is undertaken, an inventory shortfall of 15 aircraft
may occur as early as 2001.
The committee recommended an increase of two KC-130Js in
fiscal year 1999 and notes that additional KC-130J aircraft is
the Commandant of the Marine Corps' number two unfunded
aviation procurement priority for fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions and the
Commandant's priorities, the committee recommends $264.3
million, an increase of $252.0 million for four KC-130J
aircraft.
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
The budget request contained no funds for the LESPA.
Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life,
the committee continues to believe that the Navy will realize
substantial life cycle cost savings by procuring LESPA, as
compared to the use of existing parachutes. Accordingly, the
committee strongly supports the LESPA to replace old parachutes
in the P-3 and E-2C aircraft.
Consistent with its previous actions, the committee
recommends $10.0 million to procure additional LESPAs: $5.0
million for the P-3 and $5.0 million for the E-2C.
MV-22
The budget request contained $796.4 million to procure 10
MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft and $71.0 million for advance
procurement of 16 aircraft in fiscal year 2001.
The committee continues to support accelerated MV-22
procurement and endorses the Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR)
recognition of the urgent need to replace the Marine Corps'
aging fleet of Vietnam-era CH-46 medium lift helicopters. The
committee notes that the procurement of additional MV-22
aircraft in fiscal year 2000 is the Commandant of the Marine
Corps' highest unfunded aviation procurement priority.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the QDR's
findings, and the Commandant's priorities, the committee
recommends $856.4 million, an increase of $60.0 million to
procure one additional MV-22 aircraft.
P-3 series modifications
The budget request contained $276.2 million for P-3 series
modifications, of which $106.0 million was included for six
anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) kits.
The AIP improves the P-3's communications, survivability,
and over-the-horizon targeting capabilities through the
installation of commercial-off-the-shelf components. The
committee understands that the Navy's operational objective is
56 AIP-configured aircraft by fiscal year 2000 but notes that
only 44, including the six requested in fiscal year 2000, have
been funded. The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) has included additional AIP kits among his
highest unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000.
To reduce the Navy's shortfall and in consonance with the
CNO's priorities, the committee recommends an increase of $70.0
million for an additional five AIP kits.
T-45 training system (TS)
The budget request contained $325.5 million for 15 T-45
aircraft and associated ground training systems, and $9.6
million for advance procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year
2001.
The T-45TS, consisting of the T-45 aircraft and ground-
based training, replaces the Navy's TA-4J and T-2C as advanced
pilot training aircraft.
The committee supports the T-45TS but notes unexplained
cost growth for engineering change orders. Consequently, the
committee recommends $323.5 million, a decrease of $2.0
million.
UC-35
The budget request contained no funds for the UC-35.
The UC-35 is a long-range medium-lift operational support
aircraft. The committee understands that the Future Years
Defense Program includes procurement of three UC-35s in fiscal
years 2001 and 2002 to replace older CT-39s. However, the
committee further understands that, since submission of the
budget request, the need to replace the CT-39 has been
accelerated because two of the Marine Corps' CT-39s have been
transferred to the Navy for Undergraduate Naval Flight Officer
training and the third aircraft is approaching the end of its
service life.
Since the Commandant of the Marine Corps has included three
UC-35s among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000, the
committee recommends $18.0 million to procure these aircraft.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $1,357.4 million for Weapons
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,764.7 million for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Aerial targets
The budget request contained $21.2 million for aerial
targets, but included no funds for the BQM-74.
The BQM-74 is a practice aerial target designed to
replicate anti-ship cruise missiles, and the committee
understands that, since entering the Navy's inventory, it has
satisfied over 80 percent of missions requiring high-speed
aerial targets. While the Department has informed the committee
that its inventory objective for BQM-74 targets is 240 at the
end of each fiscal year in the Future Years Defense Program, no
future BQM-74 targets have been budgeted. The committee is
concerned that without BQM-74s, adequate crew training and
weapons system tests will not be possible. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to procure
BQM-74 targets.
The committee notes $2.1 million of unexplained government
costs for other aerial targets and recommends a decrease of
this amount.
In total, the committee recommends $44.1 million for aerial
targets, an increase of $22.9 million.
Evolved seasparrow missile (ESSM)
The budget request contained $11.7 million for the ESSM, of
which $1.1 million was included for fleet support and
integrated logistics support (ILS).
The ESSM program is a cooperative effort among 10 North
Atlantic Treaty Organization nations to develop and produce an
improved version of the Navy's shipboard ``RIM-7P'' surface-to-
air missile. The committee notes that production of the
missiles for which funds were appropriated in fiscal year 1999
has been delayed due to software problems and further notes
that no missiles are planned for production in fiscal year
2000.
Consequently, the committee believes that no funds are
required for fleet support and ILS and recommends $10.6
million, a decrease of $1.1 million.
Hellfire II missile
The budget request contained no funds for Hellfire II
missiles.
The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and
anti-ship weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH-1W
helicopter and by the Navy on the SH-60B helicopter. The
committee notes that, despite additional funding provided by
Congress in fiscal year 1998, the Department has still not met
its inventory requirement for these missiles. Consequently, the
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has included procurement of 750
Hellfire II missiles among his unfunded priorities for fiscal
year 2000.
The committee supports the CNO's request and recommends an
increase of $52.0 million to procure 750 Hellfire II missiles.
Joint stand-off weapon (JSOW)
The Navy budget request contained $154.9 million for 615
JSOWs, and the Air Force budget request contained $80.0 million
for 193 JSOWs.
The JSOW is an air-to-ground glide weapon that uses the
global positioning system and an inertial navigation system for
its precision guidance and can be launched outside the range of
most target-area surface-to-air threat systems. The committee
understands that the JSOW performed flawlessly on its first 17
combat deliveries in the first half of fiscal year 1999 during
Operation Southern Watch in Southwest Asia. As a result of its
success rate, the committee also understands that current JSOW
demand for both the European Operation Allied Force and the
Southwest Asian Operation Southern Watch combat operations
exceeds supply.
Consequently, the committee recommends $229.9 million for
the Navy, an increase of $75.0 million for 401 JSOWs, and
$115.0 million for the Air Force, an increase of $35.0 million
for 207 JSOWs.
Rolling airframe missile
The budget request contained $45.4 million for 90 rolling
airframe missiles (RAM). The RAM is a lightweight ship self-
defense system designed to engage anti-ship missiles.
The committee notes unexplained cost growth for component
improvement, government in-house engineering, and production
acceptance. Consequently, the committee recommends $44.4
million, a decrease of $1.0 million.
Standard missile
The budget request contained $198.9 million for Standard
missiles, of which $45.9 million was included for 75 Block IIIB
missiles, $43.6 million for 16 Block IVA missiles, and $93.5
million for procurement support costs.
The Standard missile is a surface-to-air missile employed
on AEGIS cruisers and destroyers. The Block III series missiles
have improved homing and guidance mechanisms, while the Block
IVA missile is upgraded with a new booster for better range and
maneuverability and would add a near-term capability against
theater ballistic missiles.
Subsequent to submission of the budget request, the
committee has learned that technical problems with the
development of the Block IVA missile have resulted in testing
delays. The committee understands that, as a result of these
delays, development and operational evaluation of the Block IVA
will not be complete until early in fiscal year 2001. Since
procurement of the Block IVA missile will not occur before
fiscal year 2001, the committee recommends no funds for this
program, a decrease of $43.6 million. Elsewhere in this report,
the committee recommends an increase for Block IVA missile
engineering and manufacturing development.
The committee notes, however, that the Chief of Naval
Operations has included additional Block IIIB missiles among
his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million for 27
additional Block IIIB missiles.
The committee also notes a 39 percent increase in
procurement support costs from fiscal year 1999 appropriated
levels, despite the fact that the total number of missiles to
be procured decreases. Therefore, the committee recommends a
reduction of $14.4 million.
In total, the committee recommends a decrease of $39.0
million for the Standard missile.
Tomahawk missiles
The budget request contained $50.9 million for the
remanufacture of 148 Block II Tomahawk land attack missiles
(TLAM) to the Block III configuration, but included no funds to
remanufacture Tomahawk anti-ship missiles (TASM) to the TLAM
Block III configuration or to re-start TLAM Block III missile
production.
The Tomahawk missile is a long range, precision strike
cruise missile launched from surface ships or submarines and is
produced in both TASM or TLAM versions for conventional
warfare. The TLAM Block III, the most current and the most
sought-after version by theater commanders-in-chief, has
increased range and accuracy and involves decreased planning
time compared to the earlier TLAM block II configuration. In
the first half of fiscal year 1999, over 500 TLAMs have been
expended in Southwest Asia and European combat operations,
substantially reducing the TLAM inventory below required
levels.
As a result of the TLAM shortage, the Department requested
$421.2 million in fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental
appropriations for the remanufacture of 424 Block II TLAMs and
200 TASMs to the Block III configuration. Despite this
increase, the committee has learned that Tomahawk inventory
requirements will still not be met in the Future Years Defense
Program.
Consequently, the committee recommends $350.9 million, an
increase of $300.0 million. Of this amount, $260.8 million is
for the remanufacture of 326 TASMs to the TLAM Block III
configuration, $40.0 million is for non-recurring costs to re-
start the TLAM Block III production line, and $50.1 million is
for the procurement of new production TLAM Block III missiles.
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $484.9 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 2000. The
committee recommends authorization of $612.9 million for fiscal
year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Navy ammunition
The budget request contained $328.7 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $381.7 million, an
increase of $53.0 million to procure additional Joint Direct
Attack Munitions which were among the top unfunded priorities
of the Chief of Naval Operations for fiscal year 2000:
[In millions of dollars]
JDAM.............................................................. 48.0
MJU-52 BOL IR..................................................... 5.0
Marine Corps ammunition
The budget request contained $156.2 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $231.2 million, an
increase of $75.0 million for the following types of
ammunition, which are among the top unfunded priorities of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2000:
[In millions of dollars]
5.56mm, all types................................................. 9.0
7.62mm, all types................................................. 5.0
Linear charges, all types......................................... 10.0
.50 Caliber....................................................... 4.0
40mm, all types................................................... 1.3
60mm, all types................................................... 4.0
CTG 25mm, all types............................................... 8.2
Rocket, 83mm Dual Mode HE......................................... 14.0
Artillery, all types.............................................. 8.0
Fuze, Hand Grenade, practice...................................... 3.0
Charge, Demolition Assembly....................................... 7.2
Items less than $5.0 million...................................... 1.3
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $6,678.5 million for
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The
committee recommends authorization of $6,687.2 million for
fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Attack submarine force level
Although a baseline force of 50 nuclear powered attack
submarines (SSNs) was established in the 1997 Quadrennial
Defense Review, Department of the Navy witnesses testified in
1998 that theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINC) requirements for
SSNs, including aircraft carrier battlegroup deployments,
Arctic operations, special forces missions, and independent
presence missions dictate a force of 72 SSNs. Near term fiscal
constraints make such a force unaffordable.
Early in the next century, LOS ANGELES Class SSNs, procured
at relatively high rates of two to four boats per year during
the 1980s, will reach the end of their service lives and begin
to leave the fleet in large numbers. The low SSN procurement
rate between 1990 and 2005, if not redressed, will drive the
SSN force level below 50 boats. Moreover, by 2015 significant
military challenges from modernized military forces and the
proliferation of advanced military weapons could confront our
armed forces. This situation may require a Navy that has a
larger SSN force. The committee is concerned that potential
future threats to U.S. national security interests warrant the
establishment of an absolute minimum SSN force level of 50
boats and believes the SSN procurement rates in the Future
Years Defense Program must be increased and maintained at a
rate to ensure that this minimum force level is sustained.
LHD-8 amphibious assault ship
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of a
Wasp-class (LHD) amphibious assault ship.
The committee understands that the Navy intends to procure
the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship in fiscal year 2005 but has
yet to decide whether or not to conduct a service life
extension program (SLEP) to the older Tarawa-class (LHA)
amphibious assault ships in the fleet. Should the Navy choose
to SLEP the LHA ships, it could cost almost $1.0 billion per
ship and add only 15 years to the service life of each ship. An
alternative to the LHA SLEP may be the new construction of LHD-
class amphibious assault ships. The LHD is larger than the LHA
and in most respects provides more capability. The committee
understands that, with some modifications, the LHD could meet
or exceed the capabilities of the LHA in all regards. The
committee believes that avoiding a break in the production of
LHD-class ships preserves the option of procuring these vessels
as an alternative to an LHD SLEP until the Navy determines
which option is more cost-effective.
Therefore, to preserve this option, the committee
recommends an additional $15.0 million for advance procurement
of long lead materials for the construction of LHD-8.
Strategic sealift
The budget request contained no funds for the acquisition
of new sealift ships in the National Defense Sealift Fund.
The committee is concerned that the Maritime Prepositioning
Force (Enhanced) MPF(E) conversion program that was intended to
provide the Marine Corps with three additional prepositioning
ships by purchasing and converting used foreign vessels has
proven to be more costly than originally envisioned. Since
there are insufficient funds to complete all of the planned
conversions and the Marine Corps prepositioning requirement has
not been reduced, the committee continues to believe that the
most sensible way to address the shortfall is to convert a
Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) vessel to the Marine
Corps-required configuration.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0
million in the National Defense Sealift Fund: $50.0 million for
the advance procurement of long lead components for the
construction of an additional LMSR and $30.0 million for
modification of an existing LMSR for the Marine Corps mission.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $4,100.1 million for Other
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends
authorization of $4,260.4 million for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar upgrade
The budget request contained no funds for upgrading the AN/
BPS-16 submarine navigation radar to make it compliant with the
Navy's electronic chart display information systems (ECDIS-N).
ECDIS-N compliance will eliminate the requirement for paper
navigational charts on submarines by upgrading radar navigation
systems with computer-based charts designed to international
commercial standards.
The committee added $9.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to
upgrade AN/BPS-15(H) submarine radar systems to the ECDIS-N
standard. The committee continues to support the ECDIS-N
compliance and recommends an increase of $8.0 million to
provide for the procurement and installation of nine ship sets
of equipment to upgrade the AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation
radar.
AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radar
The budget request contained $1.1 million for the
procurement and installation of AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search
radars.
The committee understands that the Navy currently operates
several different surface search radar variants as well as
commercial navigational radars and plans to replace these
systems with the AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radar, a
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) system, in order to improve
performance and standardize logistics and maintenance
requirements. The committee supports the accelerated adoption
of a standard COTS surface search radar and believes it can be
expected to greatly reduce total ownership costs to the Navy.
Therefore, the committee recommends $15.1 million, an
increase of $14.0 million for necessary non-recurring combat
systems integration costs and to procure and install additional
AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radars.
AN/USC-42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) ultra-high
frequency (UHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) terminals
The budget request contained $237.7 million for SATCOM ship
terminals, but included no funds for AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA UHF
SATCOM terminals.
The AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA terminal is a commercial-off-the-
shelf variant of the shipboard DAMA transceiver miniaturized
for submarine application. It provides two-way satellite
encrypted voice and data communications in a much smaller
package than other DAMA and non-DAMA terminals.
The committee understands that DAMA terminals may provide
up to four times more UHF satellite channel capacity than
conventional terminals through multiplexing, thereby providing
increased utilization of existing satellite channels and
reducing the requirement for additional satellites. The
committee further understands that the Navy plans no additional
procurement of AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminals even
though there remains a shortfall of these units.
Therefore, the committee recommends $247.7 million, an
increase of $10.0 million to procure additional mini-DAMA UHF
SATCOM terminals and associated spares.
Computer aided submode training (CAST) lesson authoring system (CLASS)
The budget request contained $86.7 million for AEGIS
support equipment, but included no funds for CLASS to be
expanded to ships or systems other than AN/UYQ-70-equipped
AEGIS destroyers.
CLASS is a commercial-off-the-shelf training system that
operates with the Navy's existing CAST system, but adds multi-
media capabilities such as video, audio, three-dimensional
graphics, animation, and interactive simulations. The committee
understands that the CLASS is being installed on AN/UYQ-70-
equipped AEGIS destroyers, but the Navy does not plan to
backfit this system on other AEGIS-equipped platforms or to
expand it to other systems. The committee supports the
incorporation of effective commercial training technologies
into Navy warships and believes that the CLASS can provide
flexible low-cost training capabilities to all AEGIS class
ships.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $94.7 million for
AEGIS support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million for the
purpose of backfitting CLASS on non-AN/UYQ-70-equipped AEGIS
cruisers and destroyers and to expand this technology to other
systems such as cooperative engagement capability, joint
maritime command information system, and global command and
control system.
Firefighting equipment
The budget request contained $17.0 million for fire
fighting equipment, of which $12.0 million was included for the
procurement and installation of the Fire Fighters Breathers
Apparatus (FFBA).
The FFBA is a self-contained, compressed air breathing
device that is compatible with fire fighter protective wear,
helmet and other damage control equipment. The committee
understands that it is a safer system that provides breathable
air to the fire fighter for a longer period of time than the
current, less capable oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA).
Accordingly, the committee recommends $32.0 million, an
increase of $15.0 million to accelerate the replacement of
existing OBA systems with the FFBA.
Joint engineering data management and information control system
(JEDMICS)
The budget request contained no funds for JEDMICS, a
Department of Defense-wide repository for engineering drawings
and related text.
The committee believes that the transfer of unclassified
sensitive information contained in the JEDMICS database via the
Internet may lead to unacceptable national security risks and
is aware that, in order to provide better security for the
system, the program office has identified DiamondTEK, a
commercial-off-the-shelf network security product as the
solution to the problem.
The committee fully supports the integration of DiamondTEK
technology into JEDMICS and recommends an increase of $12.0
million for this purpose.
Minesweeping equipment
The budget request contained $16.3 million for minesweeping
equipment, of which $900 thousand was included for procurement
of the versatile mine exercise system (VEMS). The budget
request included no funds for procurement of the Dyad mine
countermeasures system.
The VEMS is a simulation system that provides realistic
training for fleet and mine countermeasures forces. The system
also aids in evaluating the effectiveness of mine warfare
tactics and provides a quantitative assessment of equipment and
ship vulnerability. The committee understands that the Navy has
not met its inventory objective for the VEMS.
The Dyad mine countermeasures system is an influence
minesweeping system towed behind a small craft that can mimic
the magnetic and acoustic signature of a larger vessel to clear
a path through a minefield for that vessel. The committee
understands that the Navy evaluated this system in 1996 and
favorably reported its potential for port breakout minesweeping
missions.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $24.9 million for
minesweeping equipment, an increase of $4.1 million to procure
additional VEMS and an increase of $4.5 million to procure Dyad
countermeasures systems.
Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)
The budget request contained $12.2 million for weapons
range support but included no funds to procure MRES systems.
The MRES is a ground-based, high-power electronic warfare
threat simulator that is capable of tracking fast-moving
tactical aircraft, surface ships and other signal collection
platforms. The committee believes that the Navy currently
operates outdated electronic simulators that are incapable of
tracking fast-moving tactical aircraft and do not provide high
fidelity threat representations so critical for realistic
training.
Therefore, to improve the quality and availability of
electronic warfare threat training, the committee recommends
$20.2 million, an increase of $8.0 million to procure and
install one MRES system.
Other training equipment
The budget request contained $44.2 million for other
training equipment, of which $27.9 million was included to
procure Battle Force Tactical Training (BFTT) equipment.
The BFTT system allows surface combatants, submarines and
aircraft carriers to conduct realistic, coordinated training
scenarios using ownship equipment instead of shore-based
training simulators. The committee understands that while BFTT
is a valuable training system, it currently lacks an Air
Traffic Control (ATC) training capability for aircraft carriers
and a complete BFTT Electronic Warfare Trainer (BEWT)
interface.
Therefore, in order to improve the utility of the BFTT
system and to provide realistic low-cost ATC and electronic
warfare training, the committee recommends $56.2 million, an
increase of $12.0 million: $7.0 million for the procurement and
installation of 12 ATC trainers and $5.0 million to complete
the procurement of 30 BEWT systems.
Shipboard display emulator (SDE) equipment
The budget request contained no funds for SDE equipment for
Perry and Spruance class surface combatants and older AEGIS
class ships not equipped with the Vertical Launching System.
The committee understands that older surface combatants use
obsolete display systems that are no longer in production and
are increasingly more difficult to maintain due to the scarcity
of repair parts. Consequently, the committee believes that
these ships, which constitute over one quarter of the Navy's
surface combatant force and are expected to remain in active
service for several years, should be upgraded with modern,
supportable display systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million to procure and install modern state-of-the-art SDE
equipment in older surface combatants.
Sonobuoys
The budget request contained $48.0 million for the
procurement of sonobuoys, including the AN/SSQ-36, AN/SSQ-53E,
AN/SSQ-57, AN/SSQ-62E, AN/SSQ-101, and Signal Underwater Sound
buoys.
The committee notes that the Navy's peacetime annual
requirement for sonobuoys is approximately 100,000 units, but
that the budget request only funds approximately 50,000
sonobuoys of all types. Despite the end of the Cold War, anti-
submarine warfare remains a primary mission of the Navy that
requires coordinated realistic training of air, surface, and
submarine units. Such training necessarily consumes large
numbers of sonobuoys, and the Navy's procurement rate fails to
meet the annual peacetime requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million to address this shortfall, to be distributed as
follows: $12.8 million for AN/SSQ-53E, $6.0 million for AN/SSQ-
62E, and $1.2 million for AN/SSQ-101.
Surface sonar support equipment
The budget request contained no funds for surface sonar
support equipment.
The committee understands that the Navy has developed a new
material and production process for surface ship sonar dome
windows and that initial testing on FFG-7 frigate keel sonar
domes has thus far validated the expected performance
improvements. While the FFG-7 application is useful, the
majority of Navy surface ships that are equipped with hull
mounted sonars, including DDG-51 and DD-963 class destroyers,
and CG-47 class cruisers, have bow-mounted sonar domes which
require more complex sonar dome windows.
The committee further understands that efforts are underway
to fabricate a dome made from the new material for installation
on a DDG-51 destroyer and recommends an increase of $5.0
million to refine manufacturing processes and reduce production
costs of the new sonar dome.
WSN-7B ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN-2 doppler sonar velocity log
(DSVL)
The budget request contained $67.5 million for navigation
equipment, of which $40.4 million was included for the
procurement of 43 WSN-7 RLGs, but included no funds for the
procurement of WQN-2 DSVLs.
The WSN-7 RLG is the common RLG ship navigation system for
surface ships and submarines. The WQN-2 has been designated by
the Navy as the fleet standard speed log to replace obsolete
and maintenance intensive electro-magnetic speed logs currently
in service throughout the fleet. The committee added $18.0
million in fiscal year 1999 to accelerate introduction of these
systems into the fleet in order to reduce the life cycle costs
of ship navigational systems and continues to strongly support
an accelerated program.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for
the procurement and installation of 30 additional WSN-7B RLGs
to significantly accelerate the replacement of maintenance
intensive WSN-2 ship conventional gyro navigation systems in
surface ships. The committee also recommends an increase of
$10.0 million for the procurement and installation of 30
additional WQN-2 DSVLs to upgrade ship speed logs concurrent
with navigation system upgrades.
Undersea warfare support equipment
The budget request contained $2.6 million for undersea
warfare support equipment, of which $1.2 million was included
for procurement of 55 Launched Expendable Acoustic Devices
(LEADs).
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not widely
fielded effective countermeasures against submarine launched
torpedoes but notes that the LEAD was approved for full
production in May 1998.
To address this concern the committee recommends $11.2
million, an increase of $8.6 million for procurement of 300
LEADs and two SSTD test beds for large deck ships in order to
widely disseminate throughout the fleet a capable defense
against torpedoes.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $1,137.2 million for
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,297.5 million for fiscal year
2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
155 millimeter (mm) lightweight towed howitzer
The budget request did not contain funds to procure the
155mm lightweight towed howitzer.
The committee notes that, as a result of production delays,
the 155mm lightweight towed howitzer program was restructured
and a new prime contractor was selected. Since this
restructuring, program performance has improved dramatically
with engineering, testing and schedule milestones being met
successfully. While litigation pursued by an arsenal union/
industry team against the Army regarding the original 155mm
lightweight towed howitzer contract award is unfortunate and a
cause for concern, the committee believes it should not be
allowed to interfere with other business opportunities for the
arsenal.
The committee also believes that arsenals possess valuable
capabilities that are underutilized, especially in the areas of
recoil mechanisms, carriages and gun barrels. The committee
further believes that given the opportunity, arsenals could
contribute to improved quality and reduced costs for these and
other components being subcontracted for the restructured 155mm
lightweight howitzer program.
Accordingly, the committee expects the Army to establish a
process by which arsenals shall be afforded an opportunity to
submit challenge proposals for appropriate artillery and tank
system components to be considered for incorporation into these
weapons systems.
Body armor
The budget request contained no funds in Procurement,
Marine Corps for body armor.
In previous years, the committee noted the effectiveness of
the all-torso body armor used during Operation Provide Hope in
Mogadishu, Somalia, and that subsequent analyses have indicated
that more than 50 percent of all life-threatening wounds
received in combat could be prevented by using this armor.
The committee continues to believe that the costs of
procuring and fielding this type of armor far outweigh the
medical expenses and loss of human life that would be avoided
by its employment. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million, for the procurement of all-torso body
armor.
Communications and electronic infrastructure support
The budget request contained $81.8 million for
communications and electronic infrastructure support equipment,
of which $43.0 million was included for the upgrades to and
fielding of base telecommunications upgrades.
For each of the last three years, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps has designated base telecommunications upgrades to
the Marine Corps Enterprise Network as his number one non-
aviation unfunded priority.
Consistent with its past actions to support the Marine
Corps' demands for transfer of all types of data among its
bases, the committee recommends $131.8 million, an increase of
$20.0 million for telecommunications infrastructure upgrades at
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, $5.0 million for upgrades at
Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center Bridgeport, and
$25.0 million for upgrades at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.
Marine Corps air ground task force (MAGTF) command, control,
communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) modification
kits
The budget request contained $13.8 million for
modifications to previously fielded MAGTF C4I equipment, of
which $5.0 million was included to procure product improvements
for the mobile electronic warfare support system (MEWSS).
The MEWSS is an electronic warfare equipment suite included
in a variant of the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV). The MEWSS
product improvement program (PIP) replaces obsolete components
with upgrades that can detect, locate, and demodulate advanced
adversary communications.
The committee notes that the Army and the Marine Corps were
working together to field a joint, seamless ground signals
intelligence collection capability. The MEWSS PIP was the
Marine Corps' system, and the ground based common sensor (GBCS)
was the Army's. However, the Army terminated its portion of the
program in fiscal year 1998. This action directly impacted the
MEWSS PIP, resulting in increased costs and delayed fielding.
The committee understands that the Army has decided to lessen
the impact of the GBCS termination on the MEWSS by providing
GBCS residual equipment to the Marine Corps. However,
modifications to this equipment will be required in order to
retrofit it into the MEWSS LAV and the Marine Corps did not
budget for these.
Therefore, the committee recommends $18.8 million for MAGTF
C4I modification kits, an increase of $5.0 million to modify
GBCS sensor systems into the MEWSS LAV.
Material handling equipment
The budget request contained $50.0 million for the
procurement of various types of material handling equipment,
but included no funds for the remanufacture of D7G bulldozers.
The D7G bulldozer is used throughout Marine Corps combat
engineer and support units to build airfields, as well as for
combat clearing and debris excavation.
The committee notes that the service's bulldozer fleet is
14 years old and rapidly deteriorating. The committee also
notes that the D7G remanufacturing program is one of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps' fiscal year 2000 unfunded
priorities and that this program will extend the life of 200
bulldozers for an additional 10 years.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $66.5 million, an
increase of $16.5 million for D7G bulldozer remanufacturing.
Modification kits (tracked vehicles)
The budget request contained $22.9 for the procurement of
various modifications to tracked vehicles, but included no
funds for upgrading M88A1 recovery vehicles to the more capable
M88A2 Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicle (IRV) variant.
The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles
weighing less than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are
required to safely tow an Abrams tank if it is rendered
immobile due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The A2
upgrade includes increased engine horsepower, as well as
braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension capabilities
required to safely recover Abrams tanks and other heavy combat
systems.
The committee has recommended an increase for Army IRV
upgrades elsewhere in this report, and based on the critical
role that this vehicle will fulfill in future expeditionary
operations and warfare, the committee also recommends $72.3
million, an increase of $49.4 million for 24 M88A2 IRV upgrades
for the Marine Corps.
Night vision equipment
The budget request contained $9.0 million for the
procurement of night vision equipment, of which $3.2 million
was included for the procurement of generation III 25
millimeter (mm) image intensification tubes, but no funds were
included to procure AN/PEQ-2 laser Target/Illuminator/Aiming
Light (TPIAL).
The committee is aware of the joint Army/Navy/Marine Corps
program to procure generation III 25mm image intensification
tubes as replacements for less capable generation II tubes
fielded in the AN/PVS-4 and AN/TVS-5 night vision goggles and
notes that the generation III tubes provide a minimum 25
percent resolution increase. The AN/PEQ-2 TPIAL is a dual
laser, consisting of highly collimated infrared aiming light
and infrared target illuminator, which are visible only through
night vision goggles. These lasers can either be operated
independently or in combination.
The committee notes that both generation III 25mm image
intensification tubes and AN/PEQ-2 laser TPIALs are top
unfunded priorities of the Commandant of Marine Corps in fiscal
year 2000. Based on the enhanced operational capability that
night vision devices provide to combat forces and the
committee's belief that these devices will provide a pivotal
``force multiplier'' in future Marine Corps expeditionary
operations and warfare, the committee recommends $17.5 million,
an increase of $3.5 million for generation III 25mm image
intensification tubes and an increase of $5.0 million for AN/
PEQ-2 laser TPIALs.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $9,302.1 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $9,647.7 million for fiscal year
2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Bomber modernization
The committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-532)
required the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a bomber
modernization plan that identified upgrades required for the
current bomber fleet, a funding profile for these upgrades, and
a timeline for consideration of the acquisition of a follow-on
bomber. The plan submitted by the Secretary would sustain the
current bomber force structure, consisting of B-2, B-1, and B-
52 bombers, through 2037 and would delay any planning for
procurement of a new bomber until 2013. The committee considers
this planned force structure is unacceptable.
Consistent with the March 1998 conclusions of the
Congressionally-directed Long Range Air Power Panel, the
committee continues to believe that a replacement bomber will
be required much sooner than predicted in Air Force bomber
roadmap. The committee notes that by 2037, on average, B-2
bombers will have been in service over 40 years, the B-1 over
50 years, and the B-52 nearly 80 years, with a fleet average of
over 60 years. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Air Force to provide to the House Committee on Armed
Services and Senate Committee on Armed Services by February 15,
2000, a conceptual study of a next generation bomber, including
cost estimates, to be deployed by approximately 2015.
C-17
The budget request contained $3,080.1 million to procure 15
C-17 aircraft and $304.9 million for advance procurement of 15
aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The budget request did not
include advance procurement funds for a maintenance training
system (MTS) for the Air National Guard.
The C-17 MTS is designed to qualify personnel to maintain
the C-17 aircraft. The committee understands that the Air
National Guard unit that will receive C-17 aircraft in fiscal
year 2003 requires an MTS for initial qualification of its
maintenance personnel prior to the arrival of the aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $3,083.6 million, an
increase of $3.5 million for advance procurement of an Air
National Guard MTS.
C-17A aircraft modifications
The budget request contained $95.6 million for C-17A
aircraft modifications, of which $11.9 million was included for
the electronic flight control system (EFCS) modification.
The EFCS modification updates the C-17A's flight control
computers with increased memory and allows for future system
expansion. The committee supports the EFCS upgrade but notes
unexplained equipment cost growth for this modification.
Consequently, the committee recommends $93.5 million for C-
17 modifications, a decrease of $2.1 million for the EFCS
modification.
C-130J
The committee notes that the Marine Corps has a clear
requirement for 51 KC-130J aircraft to replace existing KC-
130F/Rs, many of which are already almost 40 years old. In
addition, the Air Force has reported a requirement for 150 C-
130J-30s to replace C-130Es delivered in the early 1960s. None,
however, were included in the budget request, and the Air Force
currently plans to delay procurement until fiscal year 2002. An
aircraft production line cannot be simply turned off and on
without major disruption to the total supplier network across
the country and the loss of skilled employees it represents.
Such a shutdown and restart of the C-130J production is
estimated to cost $500.0 million.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
include the necessary funds in the President's fiscal year 2001
budget request for the procurement of both Marine Corps KC-
130Js and Air Force C-130J-30s, in order to meet the
requirement without the adverse disruption resulting from the
shutdown and restart of the production line.
C-135 modifications
The budget request contained $347.1 million for C-135
modifications, of which $170.7 million was included for the
compass, radar, and global positioning system modification
known as PACER CRAG, but included no funds for reengining older
model KC-135E tanker aircraft.
The committee has long been a strong supporter of the KC-
135 reengining program and notes that 414 KC-135A/Q/E model
tankers have been funded to date. The committee also notes its
past disagreement with the Department's decision to cancel the
KC-135E reengining modification and has added additional
funding for such purpose in each of the last several years.
Consistent with its past actions, the committee recommends an
increase of $52.0 million for two KC-135E reengining kits.
The committee also notes excessive cost growth in PACER
CRAG installation equipment when compared to prior years.
Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.1
million for the PACER CRAG modification.
In total, the committee recommends an increase of $49.9
million for these C-135 modifications.
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP)
The budget request contained $138.4 million for various RC-
135 and U-2 aircraft modifications, but included no funds for
RC-135 Rivet Joint (RJ) quick reaction capabilities (QRCs) or
an upgraded U-2 common data link (CDL).
The RC-135 RJ is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft that
provides real-time intelligence to combat forces. The QRCs
consist of new software and hardware processing modifications
that allow the aircraft and its crews to exploit new adversary
systems. Since the Air Force Chief of Staff included additional
funding for these QRCs among his unfunded priorities for fiscal
year 2000, the committee recommends $13.4 million for these
modifications.
The U-2 is a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, and the
CDL is its data link to ground stations. The committee
understands that the U-2's current CDL, designed over 20 years
ago, has limited jam resistance and is increasingly costly to
operate and maintain. The committee also understands that an
upgraded CDL improves jam resistance, is less costly to operate
and maintain, provides enhanced throughput capacity, and is
compatible with the Department's existing information
architecture. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase
of $5.0 million to upgrade the U-2's CDL.
In total, the committee recommends $178.1 million for DARP,
an increase of $39.7 million. Explanations for other increases
are addressed in the classified annex to this report.
E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS)
The budget request contained $280.3 million to procure one
E-8C Joint STARS aircraft, but included no funds for advance
procurement to continue its production.
The Department's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
recommended reducing the number of Joint STARS aircraft to be
procured from 19 to 13 based on the assumption that the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would select and purchase
six Joint STARS to meet its requirements for Alliance Ground
Surveillance (AGS) aircraft. Despite NATO's rejection of the
Joint STARS as its AGS aircraft in 1998, the Department did not
change its recommendation nor budget for more than 13 Joint
STARS aircraft in its fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Accordingly, the committee recommended $72.0 million in fiscal
year 1999 for advance procurement of two aircraft, and the
Congress appropriated $36.0 million for one aircraft.
While the committee is encouraged that the Department has
funded the 14th Joint STARS aircraft in its budget request, the
committee remains concerned that, despite the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council-validated requirement for 19
aircraft, the Department once again intends to shut down the E-
8C production line after this aircraft is produced. These
``low-density, high demand'' aircraft are among the most
sought-after assets by the regional commanders-in-chief for a
range of reconnaissance and surveillance operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends $326.3 million, an
increase of $46.0 million for advance procurement of one
additional E-8C Joint STARS aircraft in fiscal year 2001.
F-15 modifications
The budget request contained $263.5 million for F-15
modifications, of which $17.6 million was included for 10
modification kits that convert the F100 engine to the F100-220E
configuration. However, no funds were included for conversion
of the Air National Guard's (ANG) F-15A and F-15B aircraft
engines to the F100-220E configuration.
Conversion kits for the F100 engine, also known as ``E-
kits'', will provide increased thrust, greater reliability,
reduced maintenance requirements, and better fuel efficiency.
The committee understands that, without the E-kit modification,
the ANG's F-15A/B fleet will be increasingly costly to operate
and maintain, less safe, and have diminished availability to
respond to contingency operations.
Consequently, the committee recommends $313.5 million for
F-15 modifications, an increase of $50.0 million for upgrading
for the ANG's F-15A/B aircraft with E-kits.
F-16C
The budget request contained $252.6 million for 10 F-16C
aircraft, of which $5.0 million was included for engineering
change orders (ECOs).
The F-16C is the Air Force's primary multi-mission fighter
aircraft. The committee notes that F-16Cs have been delivered
to the Air Force since fiscal year 1992 and believes that ECOs
to the aircraft should be minimal at this point in the
production cycle.
Consequently, the committee recommends $250.1 million, a
decrease of $2.5 million.
F-16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS)
The budget request contained $30.0 million for F-16 post
production support, of which $10.0 million was included for two
IAIS systems.
The F-16 IAIS is a mobile test station used to diagnose and
repair F-16 avionics problems at deployed locations. Because
the F-16 IAIS uses fewer people and requires less cargo space
for transit than the existing avionics intermediate shop, F-16
units have reported a savings of greater than $450 thousand per
deployment. The committee understands that 55 F-16 IAISs are
required, but notes that only 44 have been, or are planned to
be, procured in the Future Years Defense Program.
Consequently, the committee recommends $50.0 million, an
increase of $20.0 million for four F-16 IAIS systems-two for
active units, and one each for Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve units.
F-16 modifications
The budget request contained $249.5 million for various F-
16 modifications, including $50.0 million to procure 32
LITENING II precision attack targeting systems (PATS). However,
the request included no funds for long range fuel tanks or for
the Digital Terrain System (DTS) upgrade.
The committee understands that Air National Guard (ANG) F-
16 units are currently restricted from participation in combat
operations because of their limited capability to perform
precision strikes. The committee further understands that, due
to this situation, the ANG Chief has designated procurement of
additional LITENING II PATS as his number one unfunded priority
for fiscal year 2000. This system, which consists of a third-
generation forward-looking infrared and a laser spot tracker,
will allow older ANG F-16s to participate in future Air
Expeditionary Force deployments in support of theater
commanders-in-chief precision strike taskings.
The committee believes the integration of ANG F-16s into
precision strike operations is essential to the Total Force
concept and, therefore, recommends $80.0 million for LITENING
II PATS, an increase of $30.0 million to procure 18 additional
systems.
The committee notes that the Congress provided $4.0 million
in fiscal year 1999 for continued procurement of 600 gallon
fuel tanks for the F-16. The committee believes that additional
tanks are required to support testing with different aircraft
configurations and, therefore, recommends an increase of $4.0
million for this purpose.
The DTS is designed to reduce controlled flight into
terrain mishaps by providing F-16 pilots with a precise
navigation and a ground collision avoidance capability. The
committee has strongly supported the DTS upgrade in previous
fiscal years. The committee is aware that the Air Force has a
firm requirement for the DTS and is in the process of modifying
the F-16's operational flight program to accommodate DTS
integration. However, the committee understands that no funds
are budgeted to continue this upgrade until fiscal year 2001.
Consistent with its earlier recommendations and Air Force
requirements, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million to accelerate fielding of the DTS upgrade.
The committee supports all the modifications for which
funds were requested but notes unexplained cost growth in the
following projects: F110 digital engine control; global
positioning system; mission computer kits; and engineering
change orders. Consequently, the committee recommends a
decrease of $7.1 million for these projects.
In total, the committee recommends $296.4 million for F-16
modifications, an increase of $46.9 million.
F-22
The budget request contained $1,575.0 million for 6 F-22
aircraft and $277.1 million for advance procurement of 10
aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The budget request also contained
$1,222.2 million in PE 0604239F for F-22 engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD).
The F-22, the Air Force's next-generation air superiority
fighter aircraft, is currently approximately 80 percent
complete in the EMD phase of acquisition and low rate initial
production is planned to begin in fiscal year 2000. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L.
105-85) established a cost limitation for both the EMD and
procurement phases of the program, which are $18.9 billion for
EMD and $43.4 billion for procurement.
Over the past year, the committee has learned that
potential EMD costs could exceed the cost limitation by $667.0
million. To retain EMD costs within the cost ceiling, the Air
Force has identified proposed actions to offset this amount,
which included the depletion of the contractor's management
reserve, deferral of external combat stores certification until
after the F-22 EMD program is complete and reductions to test
and laboratory infrastructure.
The committee also notes that the Department's fiscal year
2000 request for six F-22s has increased by $312.7 million, or
25 percent, compared to its forecast cost submitted with the
fiscal year 1999 budget request. The committee understands that
the Department based its fiscal year 1999 forecast on a cost
model estimate but the fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects
negotiated values and actual contractor costs. As a result of
this increase, the committee also understands that costs for
aircraft to be procured beyond fiscal year 2000 have been
planned to cost less so that the Department can procure the
planned number of aircraft within the cost limitation.
While the committee continues to support the F-22 aircraft,
it is disturbed by continuing EMD cost growth; the prospect
that EMD actions being eliminated or deferred will result in
higher future costs, increased program risk, or both; and by
unforeseen increases in procurement costs. Since future budget
requests for research and development are projected to decrease
and for procurement are likely to rise only modestly, the
committee is concerned that future F-22 EMD and procurement
cost increases could impact other programs, may require a
reduction to the number of F-22s procured, or eliminate some of
the aircraft's intended capabilities to remain within cost
limits. Thus, the committee questions whether the present F-22
EMD and procurement programs can be completed as planned within
projected budgets and limitations.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 1, 2000, that certifies that F-22 EMD
and production can remain within the cost limits and that
testing of the aircraft will be performed in accordance with
test plans that were in place when the cost limits were
established. If the Secretary is unable to make such
certification, he shall inform the committees of the reasons
therefor and present a revised plan, including new cost
estimates, for the acquisition of this aircraft.
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request contained $38.0 million for three
Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and one ground control
station (GCS).
The committee notes that the Predator has been flying
support missions in Bosnia, and now Kosovo, for over three and
one-half years, logging more than 11,000 total flight hours.
Because of its importance to theater commanders' intelligence
needs, a solid production base for this system must be
continued, attrition reserve vehicles must be maintained, and
improvements must be made to fully exploit the potential of
this system. For example, the committee believes the laser
designator upgrades now being integrated into the aircraft for
immediate contingency needs should be put into long-term
production.
Also, Predator operations are expected to be expanded to
other theaters and operational areas. However, the committee
understands Predator is currently not deployable worldwide
because of some host-nation communications frequency
restrictions. The committee believes the Air Force needs to add
the tactical common data link (TCDL) to the air vehicles and
the GCS to overcome this operational limitation.
Finally, the committee notes that when using satellite
communications control of an aircraft, the GCS can only control
a single air vehicle at a time. This precludes dual aircraft
control for on-station relief that has been demonstrated with
the line-of-sight data link. A dual-channel beyond-line-of-
sight satellite communications capability needs to be
retrofitted into existing aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends $58.0 million, an
increase of $20.0 million to procure two additional attrition
reserve UAVs and for production versions/kits of the laser
designator, the dual-channel satellite communications suite and
the TCDL.
T-38 modifications
The budget request contained $94.5 million for T-38
modifications, of which $85.7 million was included for the
avionics upgrade program (AUP).
The AUP updates the T-38 cockpit configuration to provide
state-of-the-art avionics and improve instrument management
training. The committee supports the AUP but notes an
unexplained increase in engineering change orders.
Consequently, the committee recommends $91.1 million, a
decrease of $3.4 million.
Terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS)
The budget request contained $35.7 million for procurement
and installation of the TAWS upgrade on the C-135, KC-10, and
C-20 aircraft, but included no funds for upgrade of the T-43
aircraft.
The TAWS upgrade projects an aircraft's position relative
to the ground and improves pilot situational awareness by
warning of potential ground impact, thus preventing controlled
flight into terrain (CFIT). The committee notes that CFIT is
the leading cause of airline fatalities worldwide and that the
TAWS is required on commercial airliners.
Therefore, the committee recommends $81.0 million, an
increase of $18.2 million for the C-135, $6.0 million for the
KC-10, $10.3 million for the T-43, and $10.8 million for the C-
20, to accelerate the TAWS upgrade and understands that this
amount will complete its procurement and installation of this
equipment on these aircraft.
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $419.5 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $560.5 million for fiscal year
2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Air force ammunition
The budget request contained $416.1 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $557.1 million, an
increase of $141.0 million for the following types of
ammunition, which are among the top unfunded priorities of the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force for fiscal year 2000:
[In millions of dollars]
Rockets:
2.75 inch rocket motors....................................... 5.0
Cartridges:
.50 caliber ball, linked...................................... 1.5
.50 caliber ball/tracer, linked............................... 0.5
20mm PGU-27/B................................................. 12.6
Bombs:
Practice Bombs (BDU-50/56).................................... 23.2
General Purpose Bombs......................................... 10.0
MK-84 HE...................................................... 7.5
JDAM.......................................................... 66.0
Flares
MJU-23........................................................ 6.8
LUU-19........................................................ 5.4
LUU-2......................................................... 2.5
Of the amount recommended for practice bombs, the committee
expects $6.0 million to be designated for MK-84 (BDU-56) cast
ductile iron practice bombs.
Laser guided bombs (LGB)
The bombing campaign of Operation Allied Force clearly
illustrates the importance of precision-guided munitions as a
weapon-of-choice and the necessity to maintain an adequate
production base of these weapons for surge requirements,
replenishment, and war reserves.
The committee is concerned that reliance on a single
producer could result in unnecessary delays in replenishing and
rebuilding the inventory of LGBs. The committee is aware that
the Air Force previously qualified a second source for LGB
production and believes that a second source should be
reestablished.
Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Air Force to submit a report analyzing alternative production
options to the Congressional defense committees by June 30,
1999.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $2,359.6 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $2,303.7 million for fiscal year
2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AGM-65 modifications
The budget request contained $2.8 million to convert 200
AGM-65G missiles to the AGM-65K configuration, but included no
funds to upgrade AGM-65B missiles to the AGM-65H configuration
or for training missiles.
The AGM-65 is a precision guided tactical missile employed
on the F-16 and A-10 aircraft. The ``G'' configuration uses an
infrared (IR) target seeker, while the ``K'' and ``H''
configurations use an updated electro-optical (EO) seeker. The
``B'' configuration uses an obsolete EO target seeker.
The committee understands that the Air Force planned to
retain its AGM-65G IR-guided missiles and convert obsolete EO-
guided AGM-65B missiles to the updated AGM-65H configuration,
but, due to funding constraints, chose to modify its inventory
of 1200 AGM-65Gs to the AGM-65K configuration, which would
eliminate IR-guided AGM-65s from its inventory.
Since the committee believes that a mix of both IR- and EO-
guided AGM-65s are required for mission flexibility, it
recommends $12.8 million, an increase of $10.0 million to
convert AGM-65B missiles to the AGM-65H and AGM-65K
configurations and to procure training missiles and associated
test equipment for these variants.
Minuteman III modifications
The budget request contained $146.5 million for the
Minuteman III guidance replacement program (GRP).
The committee notes that the Air Force has substantially
delayed the planned procurement of GRP, which will replace
older guidance packages in the Minuteman III intercontinental
ballistic missile fleet. The committee understands that the
delay in the program also will force a delay of the propulsion
replacement program (PRP). The PRP will replace aging solid
rocket motors, but installation of the new rocket motors
depends on prior installation of GRP computers. The committee
also understands that the condition of solid rocket fuel in
some of these rocket motors will render them unreliable prior
to GRP completion and that the delay of GRP and PRP will
significantly lower the operational effectiveness of the
Minuteman force in the middle of the next decade.
To avoid these unacceptable operational consequences, the
committee recommends $186.5 million, an increase of $40.0
million to accelerate the procurement of GRP.
Spaceborne equipment
The budget request contained $9.6 million for spaceborne
communications security equipment.
The committee notes that these funds were requested to
support the global positioning system and the space based
infrared system but understands that these requirements have
already been met.
Consequently, the committee recommends $4.6 million, a
decrease of $5.0 million.
Titan
The budget request contained $431.2 million for the Titan
launch vehicle and launch operations.
The committee notes a substantial increase in the request
for payload integration compared to the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 1999. The committee also notes that the expenditure
rate for prior year funds is lagging behind DOD end-of-year
standards.
Consequently, the committee believes that the request
exceeds requirements and recommends $411.2 million, a reduction
of $20.0 million.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $7,085.2 million for Other
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $7,077.8 million for fiscal year
2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
60K a/c loader
The budget request contained $81.2 million to procure 39
60K aircraft loaders.
The 60K loader replaces the Air Force's aging fleet of
1960s-era 40K loaders and wide-body elevator loaders. They
provide the critical high-reach capability required to load the
KC-10 and other commercial wide-body aircraft that comprise the
Civil Reserve Air Fleet. The committee understands that there
are 55 60K loaders currently fielded at locations around the
world, providing a critical link in the responsive projection
of U.S. forces and in the delivery of materiel to support
humanitarian operations.
The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has
included 60K loaders on his list of unfunded priorities for
fiscal year 2000. In order to accelerate production and
fielding of this key material handling equipment, the committee
recommends $93.7 million, an increase of $12.5 million to
procure an additional nine 60K loaders. The committee
understands that this action will enable the maximum annual
production rate of the 60 K loader to be attained.
Aircrew laser eye protection
The budget request contained no funds to procure aircrew
laser eye protection (LEP) equipment.
The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff
recently directed that plans to procure and field LEP equipment
be immediately accelerated. The committee has provided
additional funds in prior years for the Air Force to complete
development and evaluation of aircrew LEP technologies and
understands that, as a result, two mature LEP technologies have
emerged--FV-9 dye-based spectacles and visors and the clear
laser eye protection for infrared (CLEPIR) dielectric
spectacles. The FV-9 spectacles and visors provide protection
in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the
CLEPIR spectacles provide protection in the invisible, near
infrared portion of the spectrum.
The committee strongly supports the Chief's direction to
accelerate procurement and fielding of LEP spectacles and
visors. Therefore, the committee recommends $6.6 million to
expeditiously begin procurement of the FV-9 and CLEPIR
equipment.
Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)
The budget request contained $71.2 million for ADPE but
included no funds for the spare parts production and
reprocurement system (SPARES).
The committee notes the usefulness of this information
system in supporting spare parts buys at the Ogden Air
Logistics Center and believes it should be expanded to other
installations Department-wide.
Therefore, the committee recommends $81.2 million for ADPE,
an increase of $10.0 million for this purpose.
Master crane
The budget request contained no funds for the master crane.
The master crane is an aircraft component hoisting system
for use on all aircraft, both fixed-wing and rotary. It is
currently only in limited use within the Air National Guard
(ANG) but has been found to be safer to operate, faster to use,
easier to deploy, and to require much less maintenance than
other cranes in the ANG's inventory.
The committee believes that the master crane is kind of
equipment that is needed for today's rapid deployment forces.
Therefore, the committee recommends $5.0 million to procure
additional master cranes for the ANG.
Military satellite communications terminals
The budget request contained $46.3 million for military
satellite communications terminals.
The committee understands that the request exceeds
requirements because of a schedule delay in a military
communications satellite program. Accordingly, the committee
recommends $40.0 million, a decrease of $6.3 million.
National eagle system
The budget request contained no funds to upgrade the
national eagle system.
The deployable national eagle system provides U.S. forces
with time-sensitive, commercial satellite imagery that allows
aircrews to have up-to-date access to imagery of an adversary's
terrain. Such imagery can be immediately used in aircraft
mission planning and rehearsal systems, contributing both to
survivability and mission effectiveness. However, the committee
understands that the national eagle system does not currently
have an antenna or a data acquisition capability, as does the
upgraded eagle vision system.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $5.0 million to
procure an eagle vision antenna and data acquisition segment to
upgrade the national eagle system.
Radio equipment
The budget request contained $16.7 million for radio
equipment, including $15.7 million for Scope Command.
The Scope Command program provides for consolidating and
upgrading the Department's network of high frequency (HF)
ground stations around the world with commercial-off-the-shelf,
state-of-the-art HF radio equipment. These ground stations
provide the sole command and control resource for Air Mobility
Command cargo and tanker aircraft.
The committee has been a strong supporter of Scope Command
and understands that, with minor modifications, the network is
capable of performing HF e-mail gateway functions. Since HF
radio signals use the ionosphere for propagation, incorporating
an e-mail capability into this network will provide an
inexpensive method for forward-deployed forces to communicate
with friends and families in the CONUS.
Consequently, the committee recommends $20.5 million for
radio equipment, an increase of $3.8 million to incorporate an
HF e-mail capability into the Scope Command network.
Supply asset tracking system (SATS)
The budget request contained $1.1 million for SATS.
SATS is one example of the Department's effort to achieve
Total Asset Visibility--the ability to quickly and accurately
identify and locate personnel, equipment, and supplies--through
the use of commercial automated information technology (AIT).
It incorporates radio frequency terminals and smart cards,
enabling electronic status confirmation of supply assets from
receipt to issue. The committee notes that the Congress has
provided additional funds for SATS installation over the past
two fiscal years and is supportive of the use of AIT to
streamline business processes.
Therefore, the committee recommends $11.1 million for SATS,
an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate its installation at
Air Force bases worldwide.
Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment
The budget request contained $49.7 million for tactical CE
equipment, of which $36.4 million is for theater-deployable
communications (TDC) sets. TDC is a compact, ruggedized, high-
bandwidth communications system used by forward-deployed Air
Expeditionary Force units. Its state-of-the-art technology is
much more capable than the aging equipment it replaces, and it
requires significantly reduced airlift support.
In 1997, the Air Force conducted a command and control (C2)
task force to establish an air and space C2 policy for the 21st
century. One key finding of the task force was that the service
should accelerate procurement of TDC sets and complete the
buyout of this equipment by fiscal year 2001. The committee
endorsed this finding and added $25.0 million ($18.0 million of
which was appropriated) for this purpose in fiscal year 1998
and $20.0 million (none of which was appropriated) in fiscal
year 1999.
The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has
included TDC sets on his list of unfunded priorities for fiscal
year 2000. Accordingly, the committee recommends $84.2 million
for tactical communications-electronics equipment, an increase
of $34.5 million to accelerate the production and fielding of
the two key components of the TDC set, the lightweight mobile
satellite terminal and the integrated communications access
package.
Theater air control system (TACSI)
The budget request contained $37.9 million for TACSI, but
contained no funds for mobile radar approach controls (RAPCON)
for the Air National Guard (ANG).
The committee is aware that the ANG has a requirement for
12 mobile RAPCONs, since, even though it is responsible for
over 60 percent of the Department's wartime air traffic control
(ATC) mission, it is using ATC systems originally fielded in
the 1960s. The committee understands these systems are
difficult to deploy, are becoming unsupportable due to lack of
spare parts, and lack current-generation automation aids that
reduce controller workload and fatigue. In view of this
situation, funds were appropriated for fiscal year 1999 to
procure the first replacement mobile RAPCON, an off-the-shelf,
solid-state design system that corrects these deficiencies.
The committee supports continued modernization of ANG ATC
units and recommends $61.9 million for TACSI, an increase of
$24.0 million to procure an additional three mobile RAPCONs.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $2,129.0 million for
Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $2,107.8 million for fiscal year
2000.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Automated document conversion system (ADCS)
The budget request contained no funds for the ADCS.
The committee recognizes that the ADCS is the Department's
single most productive program in the conversion of legacy
engineering drawings. However, a significant inventory of these
drawings remain to be converted if the Department is to achieve
its goal to digitize them by fiscal year 2002.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $32.0
million to continue procurement of ADCS hardware and software
for this purpose.
Mentor protege
The budget request contained $26.3 million for the Mentor
Protege program. This program provides funds to major
Department of Defense prime contractors for the purpose of
developing the technical capabilities of Small Disadvantaged
Businesses to perform as subcontractors.
The committee notes that the legal authority for this pilot
program expires at the end of fiscal year 1999. Therefore, the
committee recommends no funds for the Mentor Protege program.
Nightstar binocular
The budget request contained $23.4 million for special
operations forces small arms and weapons, but included no funds
for nightstar binoculars.
The nightstar binocular is a compact, lightweight, hand-
held binocular that combines night vision and laser range-
finding capabilities that allows the operator to transmit
range, azimuth, and elevation data to external systems such as
the global positioning system for immediate coordination
definition. The committee understands that the Department's
initial operational test and evaluation of the nightstar
binocular indicates that it provides increased capabilities
compared to existing night vision devices.
Consequently, the committee recommends $30.4 million, an
increase of $7.0 million to initiate procurement of nightstar
binoculars.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Overview
The budget request did not contain any funds for National
Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $60.0 million for fiscal year 2000.
Items of Special Interest
National guard and reserve equipment
The budget request did not contain any funds for National
Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends an increase of $60.0 million for this equipment.
[In millions of dollars]
Army Reserve:
Miscellaneous................................................. 10.0
Navy Reserve:
Miscellaneous................................................. 10.0
Marine Corps Reserve:
Miscellaneous................................................. 10.0
Air Force Reserve:
Miscellaneous................................................. 10.0
Army National Guard:
Miscellaneous................................................. 10.0
Air National Guard:
Miscellaneous................................................. 10.0
The committee expects that priority consideration be given
to the following items: fire fighting aircraft (with preference
to U.S.-manufactured aircraft), cargo compartment expanded
range fuel systems, medium tactical wreckers, night vision
devices, ALR-56M radar warning receivers, and night targeting
systems.
Reconnaissance aircraft augmentation
Following the end of the Cold War, conventional thinking
concluded that the relatively high operations tempo rates and
the numbers of reconnaissance aircraft could be reduced
significantly. Indeed, the operations tempo rates for these
aircraft have increased significantly since the demise of the
Soviet Union. In addition to their strategic reconnaissance and
operations-other-than-war roles, reconnaissance aircraft have
been increasingly called on to provide direct tactical
intelligence to forces engaged in numerous regional conflicts
or supporting peacekeeping operations.
Unfortunately, fiscal realities make it unlikely that new
reconnaissance aircraft will be procured in the near future.
Further, the numbers of reconnaissance aircraft have been
reduced over time due to accidents or to decisions such as the
Navy's to terminate the ES-3 Shadow aircraft in fiscal year
2000 and the Air Force's to terminate the Senior Scout platform
in fiscal year 2002. Although unmanned aerial vehicles may
mitigate some of these force size limitations, the committee
believes there is a need to enhance the reconnaissance
capabilities of manned systems that are already available and
in service.
The committee is aware of an initiative by the Air Force
Chief of Staff (CSAF) to use the EC-130H Compass Call offensive
information operations aircraft in a secondary reconnaissance
role. The committee fully understands that Compass Call system
operators are the same specialists that operate reconnaissance
systems such as the Rivet Joint and Senior Scout. The committee
also understands that the Compass Call mission equipment has
some of the same technical characteristics of the Rivet Joint
and Senior Scout. Consequently, the committee believes that by
exercising the full extent of the Compass Call operators'
skills and by employing the Compass Call equipment in a
different manner, a reconnaissance capability can be realized
with only minor investment.
The committee further believes the CSAF initiative has two
other important potential benefits. The first is linguist
training. Currently, Compass Call linguists train primarily in
language laboratories or in the Compass Call mission simulator,
while their reconnaissance aircrew contemporaries train daily
against their real-world mission targets. By using the Compass
Call aircraft in a reconnaissance role, its operators would
have the benefit of real-world operations, thereby having
better training for their wartime offensive information
operations role.
Second, the Air Force decision to terminate Senior Scout
leaves a mission gap for the Air National Guard's 169th
Intelligence Squadron (IS). This squadron provides a unique
linguistic talent pool that must be retained and kept
operationally proficient. Assuming the Air Force decides to use
Compass Call in the additional reconnaissance role, there
appears to be a logical force management decision to move part
of the Compass Call mission to the Air National Guard. The
169th IS would be fully taskable for peacetime reconnaissance
missions and would also be available for Air Combat Command war
or contingency missions.
The committee commends the CSAF initiative and requests the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide an analysis of this
initiative to the Congressional defense and intelligence
committees concurrent with the submission of the fiscal year
2001 budget request.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained no funds for Chemical Agents
and Munitions, Defense, for fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends authorization of $1,012.0 million
for fiscal year 2000, including $230.0 million for research and
development, $232.0 million for procurement, and $550.0 million
for operations and maintenance, as noted in the following
table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without
prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
Item of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
transferring the budget request of $1,169.0 million for
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, to Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction Defense.
The committee notes the progress that has been made during
the last fiscal year in the continuing effort to dispose of the
U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions and of
chemical warfare related materiel, while ensuring maximum
protection of the public, personnel involved in the
destruction, and the environment. Of the original stockpile of
31,495 tons of chemical agent, 13.4 percent has been destroyed
and 90 percent of the stockpile is under contract for
destruction (as of February 28, 1999). Destruction facilities
at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah, are operational. Five
facilities are in the design phase or under construction:
Anniston, Alabama; Umatilla, Oregon; Pine Bluff, Arkansas;
Aberdeen, Maryland; and Newport, Indiana. Facilities at Pueblo,
Colorado, and Blue Grass, Kentucky, are on hold pending
completion of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA)
program demonstration.
The committee notes that the current estimate of the total
cost of the chemical agents and munitions destruction program
is $14.9 billion, continues to be concerned about the cost of
the program, and believes that attention needs to be given to
measures that could reduce this overall cost, including
potential alternatives relating to the destruction of non-
stockpile related materiel and to the ultimate disposition of
the destruction facilities themselves. Accordingly the
committee recommends a provision (sec.141) that would address
the cost issue and would require the Secretary of Defense to
report to the Congressional defense committees on cost
reduction measures he might recommend.
The committee recommends $1,012.0 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, a decrease of $157.0
million. The committee notes that even after the reduction, the
amount authorized is still almost $250.0 million greater than
the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for this account. The
committee believes this reduction can be accommodated without a
breach in U.S. compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) Treaty and with no disincentive to the Russian effort to
destroy its chemical munitions stockpile.
The committee understands that the ability to complete
destruction of the chemical munitions stored at Pueblo by the
CWC date of April 29, 2007, requires the design and
construction phase for the Pueblo facility to begin in June
1999. To meet this requirement, the committee further believes
that there must be close coordination between the Project
Manager for Chemical Demilitarization and the Project Manager
for ACWA in order to accommodate future implementation of ACWA
technologies in the design of the baseline facility currently
planned for construction at Pueblo. The committee recommends a
provision (sec. 142) that would require the USD (A&T) and the
Secretary of the Army to ensure coordination of the activities
and plans of the two project managers and would also require
the Secretary to take measures necessary to facilitate the
integration of ACWA alternative technologies in the design of
the baseline facility for Pueblo.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sections 101-109--Authorization of Appropriations
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
2000 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army Programs
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter into multiyear procurement contracts for the Javelin
missile system, the M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle, the AH-64D
Longbow Apache attack helicopter, and a combined M1A2 Abrams
tank/Heavy Assault Bridge multiyear procurement contract in
fiscal year 2000.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report on the composition of multiyear
procurements in the procurement portion of the Future Years
Defense Program prior to the execution of any multiyear
contract.
Section 112--Extension of Pilot Program on Sales of Manufactured
Articles and Services of Certain Army Industrial Facilities Without
Regard to Availability from Domestic Sources
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
extend an existing pilot program through fiscal year 2001 that
enables McAlester Army Ammunition Plant and Rock Island and
Watervliet arsenals to continue to provide articles and
services under this authority. This pilot program allows the
sale of articles or services to an entity that will incorporate
those articles or services into a weapon system to be procured
by the Department of Defense or will use those articles or
services to manufacture weapon systems that will ultimately be
procured by the Department of Defense. This extension should
allow sufficient time to further evaluate the viability of the
program and the opportunity it provides for these facilities to
generate significant additional work.
Section 113--Revision to Conditions for Award of a Second-Source
Procurement Contract for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles
This section would clarify section 112 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261). It would enable the Secretary of the Army to award a
second-source full-rate production contract for the Family of
Medium Tactical Vehicles only after he certifies in writing
that the total quantity of trucks required by the Army will be
sufficient to enable the prime contractor to maintain a minimum
production level of 150 trucks per month over any given 12
month period.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for the F/A-18E/F
aircraft subject to the Secretary of Defense's certification
that the results of the aircraft's operational test and
evaluation meet both key performance parameters and
requirements for operational effectiveness and suitability and
that the multiyear procurement contract cost is at least 7.4
percent less than procurement of the same number of aircraft
through annually funded contracts.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report on the composition of multiyear
procurements in the procurement portion of the Future Years
Defense Program prior to the execution of a multiyear contract
for the F/A-18E/F.
Subtitle D--Chemical Stockpile Destruction Program
Section 141--Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical
Agents and Munitions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment of the current chemical munitions
stockpile destruction program with the purposes of reducing the
overall cost of the program and ensuring completion of the
destruction program by the date required under the Chemical
Weapons Convention Treaty, while maintaining maximum protection
of the environment, the general public, and the personnel
involved in the actual destruction of the munitions. It would
authorize the Secretary to take those actions to achieve the
purposes of the assessment that could be accomplished under
existing authorities and would direct the Secretary to
recommend additional legislative authority that may be needed.
The section would amend paragraph 1412(c)(2) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public
Law 99-145) to provide that facilities constructed to carry out
the chemical stockpile destruction program shall be disposed of
in accordance with site-specific, mutual agreements between the
Secretary of the Army and the governor of the state in which
the facility is located. The committee notes the increasing
practice in the stockpile destruction program, the chemical
stockpile emergency preparedness program, and the Assembled
Chemical Weapons Assessment, of meaningful involvement by state
and local jurisdictions and others in the development of
programmatic and policy decisions that are specific to their
local stockpile storage sites and to the construction and
operation of the stockpile destruction facilities at those
sites. The committee believes that such authority should be
extended to decisions regarding the ultimate disposition of the
chemical munitions stockpile destruction facilities.
The section would also amend subsection 1412(c) to allow
non-stockpile chemical agents, munitions, or related materials
specifically designated by the Secretary of Defense to be
destroyed at stockpile facilities once the affected states have
issued the appropriate permits.
Section 142--Alternative Technologies for Destruction of Assembled
Chemical Weapons
This section would direct and establish conditions for the
transfer of management oversight responsibility for the
assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA) program from the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to
the Secretary of the Army.
The ACWA program was established under section 8065 of the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 104-208) as the Department of Defense program for
assessment of the feasibility of alternative technologies for
the destruction of assembled chemical munitions. Such
technologies could provide an alternative to the baseline
program, which uses incineration of chemical agents and
munitions as the means for destruction of the chemical
munitions stockpile. In order to facilitate coordination of the
ACWA program with the baseline program during ACWA's
demonstration and pilot facility phase, the provision would
require the Under Secretary and the Secretary to ensure
coordination of the activities and plans of the program manager
for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment and the program
manager for Chemical Demilitarization. Further, if the Under
Secretary decides to proceed with pilot facility testing of
technologies demonstrated under the ACWA program, the provision
would transfer oversight and management of the ACWA program
from the Under Secretary to the Secretary.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 151--Limitation on Expenditures for Satellite Communications
This section would prohibit the Department from obligating
funds to procure communications systems or lease communications
services from commercial satellites, unless such systems or
services have been proven through independent testing not to
disrupt the reception of Global Positioning System (GPS)
signals.
The committee notes the increasing importance of GPS to
military operations. In recognition of this fact, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261) mandated that all new Department of Defense aircraft,
ships, armored vehicles, and indirect fire systems be equipped
with GPS by 2005. The committee also notes that GPS is very
important to civil and commercial activities as well.
The committee is disturbed that commercial satellite
communications systems that provide mobile subscriber services
(MSS) are increasingly likely to interfere with GPS signals.
Although MSS communications are important to U.S. military
forces, the committee believes that the overarching
significance of GPS to the military and as a world navigation
standard for commercial and civil users mandates the protection
of GPS frequencies.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $34,375.2 million for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E),
representing a decrease of $3,067.8 million from the amount
provided for fiscal year 1999.
The committee recommends authorization of $35,835.7
million, an increase of $1,460.5 million from the budget
request.
The committee expresses great concern with the reluctance
on the part of Department of Defense officials to acknowledge
the numerous modernization programs and science and technology
efforts that have been adversely impacted by the decrease in
overall research and development funding over the past several
years. During the presentation of the fiscal year 1999 budget
request, the Department forecasted RDT&E funding to decrease by
14 percent over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and
maintained this planned decrease was appropriately based on a
ratio of two-to-one between procurement and RDT&E. The
committee notes that the Department has not justified the
decline in overall RDT&E on the basis of an assessment of
procurement needs versus RDT&E needs, but rather on the
subjective position that a two-to-one ratio seems ``about
right'' and has worked in the past. While the Department
continues to justify this planned decline, DOD officials
routinely announce that high priority programs such as Army and
Navy theater missile defense programs, tactical information
systems, space based early warning systems, other satellite
programs, and a host of others can no longer support critically
needed deployment schedules primarily due to insufficient
funding.
The committee further notes that the Department's claim of
increased modernization funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget
request is composed of an increase of $4 billion in
procurement, while RDT&E, the other half of modernization, is
proposed to be reduced by over $3 billion. The committee is
concerned that the Department's emphasis on addressing the
backlog of military procurement is occurring at the direct
expense of the nation's critical military technologies.
The committee notes that the Department's ability to pursue
application of leading edge technologies is also severely
constrained by the fact that over 33 percent of the total RDT&E
request is for modifications to mature and aging fielded
systems, while the accounts that lead to development of new
capabilities have been decreased by almost 25 percent. This
trend appears to continue throughout the declining RDT&E FYDP.
The committee believes that this trend, if continued, will
seriously undermine our nation's technological advantage.
The committee remains concerned that an alarmingly large
number of high priority service programs are experiencing
schedule delays and restructuring due primarily to service-wide
shortages of RDT&E funds while a significant number of defense-
wide RDT&E efforts appear adequately funded and in some cases
are experiencing growth. The committee also questions the
Department's continued trend of investing large levels of
funding in environmental and other non-defense initiatives
while reducing funding necessary for efficient completion of
high priority defense programs.
The committee concludes that the Department's declining
RDT&E strategy does not support the critical tenets of the
Quadrennial Defense Review which stressed the need for a
smaller, but more modern, more capable military force, and
seriously threatens the ability of the United States to
maintain the technological superiority critical to ensuring
U.S. military dominance of tomorrow's battlefields.
Army RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $4,426.2 million for Army
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $4,708.2
million, an increase of $282.0 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Army
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Army request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Aircraft avionics
The budget request contained $6.4 million in PE64201A for
the Army Airborne Command and Control System (A2C2S).
The A2C2S is a UH-60 deployable command post, which
provides a secure and nonsecure, highly mobile data, voice, and
imagery command and control (C2) capability in support of Corps
through Brigade level commanders. The committee is aware that
the A2C2S is one of the Army Chief of Staff's top unfunded
priorities in fiscal year 2000 and that additional funding
would enable the system to complete engineering and
manufacturing development, initial operational test and
evaluation, and be fielded to the first digital corps.
Therefore, the committee recommends $21.7 million in
PE64201A, an increase of $15.3 million for these purposes.
All source analysis system
The budget request contained $49.7 million in PE 64321A,
including $43.7 million for the Army's all source analysis
system (ASAS), an increase of over 50 percent from the fiscal
year 1999 estimate.
The committee recognizes the importance of the ASAS
capability. However, it is troubled by the development costs of
this service intelligence support system, particularly when
compared to the modest costs for the other services'
intelligence systems.
The committee recommends $45.0 million in PE 64321A, a
decrease of $4.7 million.
Alternative vehicle propulsion initiative
The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no
funding for the alternative vehicle propulsion program.
The committee notes that one of the Army's most significant
challenges is to develop lighter, more efficient propulsion
systems for future vehicles. The committee believes that
dramatic advances in vehicle propulsion require harnessing the
combined capabilities of academia, the private sector, and
government research facilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
62601A for the ongoing alternative propulsion initiative and
urges the Army to aggressively pursue greater private and
public sector involvement in this effort.
Armament enhancement initiative
The budget request contained $36.9 million in PE 63639A for
the armament enhancement initiative, but included no funding
for the tank extended range munition-kinetic energy (TERM-KE).
The committee notes that the armament enhancement
initiative is intended to develop improved tank ammunition to
continue providing an overmatch capability for tanks. TERM-KE
is intended to provide a higher lethality, extended range
kinetic energy munition for the M1 tank main gun.
The committee supports development of improved munitions
and recommends $44.9 million, an increase of $8.0 million for
TERM-KE.
Army aircrew coordination training program
The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 63007A for
manpower, personnel and training, but included no funding for
aircrew coordination training.
The committee notes the recent increase in the Army
aviation accident rate and believes that aviation safety must
be enhanced. The committee is aware that the aircrew
coordination training program holds promise in reducing
aviation accident rates, and strongly urges the Army to
accelerate this program and field an enhanced air crew training
capability for Army aviation units as soon as possible.
The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 63007A, an
increase of $2.0 million for aircrew coordination training.
Army technical test instrumentation and targets
The budget request contained $30.5 million in PE 65602A for
Army technical test instrumentation and targets, but included
no funding for characterization and quantification of missile
debris hazards to aircraft.
The committee recommends $31.7 million in PE 65602A, an
increase of $1.2 million for continuation of characterization
and quantification of missile hazards to aircraft.
Comanche
The budget request contained $427.0 million in PE 64223A
for Comanche demonstration and validation.
Comanche is the Army's highest priority modernization
program and is often referred to as the ``quarterback of the
digital battlefield.'' The committee notes that while the
capabilities provided by the Comanche are described as vital to
the success of the Army in the next century, the Army is still
struggling to complete development flight testing of a totally
new, state-of-the-art aircraft with a single test aircraft.
Though the Army has received the second Comanche prototype, it
is not scheduled to be flown in the flight test program until
fiscal year 2001, due only to a shortage of funding.
The committee is aware that additional funding is necessary
to accelerate development of the mission electronics package
and enable a more aggressive flight test program using at least
two aircraft. The committee notes that additional funding for
Comanche is the Army's number one unfunded modernization
requirement and strongly supports the earliest possible
fielding of this important new capability. The committee
recommends $483.0 million in PE 64223A, an increase of $56.0
million for Comanche program acceleration.
Combat vehicle improvement programs
The budget request contained $29.5 million in PE 23735A for
combat vehicle improvement programs.
The committee notes that tracks for existing and future
tracked vehicles are a life-cycle cost driver. The committee
supports development of a lighter, higher performance track
that offers the potential of life-cycle cost improvement.
The committee recommends $31.5 million in PE 23735A, an
increase of $2.0 million for improved vehicle track
development.
Combined turbine diesel engine
The budget request contained $90.9 million in PE 63005A for
combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but
contained no funding for the ongoing turbine diesel engine.
The committee notes that turbine diesel engine development
has been slowed by technical obstacles and funding delays. The
committee also notes that the contractor has successfully
developed an operating prototype.
The committee recommends $92.9 million in PE 63005A, an
increase of $2.0 million to complete development and testing of
a prototype engine. The committee urges the Army to support any
further funding required for follow-on evaluation.
Combustion driven eye-safe laser
The budget request contained $30.6 million in PE 64710A for
night vision systems, but included no funding for the
combustion driven eye-safe laser.
The committee notes increasing concern for laser hazards
and supports development of eye-safe lasers. The committee also
notes that emerging combustion driven selective emitter
technology can be used to pump an eye-safe, portable, stealthy,
low cost radar system that identifies friend and foe.
The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 64710A, an
increase of $3.0 million for combustion driven eye-safe laser.
Concepts experimentation program
The budget request contained $17.0 million in PE 65326A for
the concept experimentation program.
The committee notes that the Army mounted maneuver
battlespace lab (MMBL) has formulated a strategic research plan
to develop strategies and doctrine for the application of Force
XXI technologies on the battlefield. The new strategies and
doctrine are intended to give combat commanders the ability to
dominate the future maneuver battlespace.
The committee recommends $22.0 million in PE 65326A, an
increase of $5.0 million for execution of the MMBL strategic
research plan.
Defense healthcare information assurance program
The budget request contained $9.4 million in PE 33140A for
the Army information systems security program.
The Congress provided $2.5 million in fiscal year 1998 to
initiate a demonstration program for military healthcare
information protection that would be consistent with national
healthcare and information protection initiatives. An
additional $4.0 million was provided in fiscal year 1999 to
continue the program. The two-phased program will initially
establish a prototype for protection of sensitive data integral
to the military healthcare information system at a single
service medical facility, then extend the prototype evaluation
to other military services, regional medical centers, and
civilian medical treatment facilities.
The committee notes the progress that has been made to date
in the prototype phase of the program and supports the plans
for extending the program to additional sites, refinement of
information protection technology, policy, procedures, and
development of industry wide security criteria for healthcare
systems. The committee understands that available funds are
sufficient for completion of the demonstration program and test
of the prototype, and that a decision could be made to begin
fielding a defense healthcare information assurance system in
fiscal year 2000.
The committee recommends $15.4 million in PE 33140A, an
increase of $6.0 million to support initiating deployment of
the defense healthcare information assurance system. The
additional funds may not be obligated until 30 days after the
Secretary of the Army reports to the Congressional defense
committees the results of the beta-test of the system and gives
recommendations for continuation of the program.
Defense manufacturing technology program
The budget request contained a total of $132.5 million for
the manufacturing technology (ManTech) program, including $14.9
million in PE 78045A, $59.1 million in PE 78011N, $51.8 million
in PE 78011F, and $6.7 million in PE 78011S.
The committee has reviewed the Department's ``Five-Year
Plan (FY00-FY04) for the Manufacturing Technology Program.''
Although the committee supports the overall direction of the
ManTech program, the committee notes that, for the second year
in a row, the total program falls far short (approximately
$60.0 million) of the Congressional funding guidelines for the
program that are contained in the statement of managers
accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-
340).
Section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-736) amended section 2525 of
title 10, United State Code, to establish annual goals for cost
sharing in the DOD ManTech program and procedures for waiver of
the cost sharing requirements in the program. The intent of the
Congress in the amendment was to provide increased flexibility
to the Secretary of Defense in the administration of the cost
sharing requirement, rather than establishing fixed, rigid
guidelines. To clarify the Congress' intent regarding the
flexibility available to the Secretary in his administration of
the cost sharing requirement, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 212), which would eliminate percentages goals
for cost sharing in manufacturing technology projects.
The committee notes a significant reduction in the
manufacturing technology program managed by the Defense
Logistics Agency. The committee also notes a significant
reduction in the Army's manufacturing technology program,
including the failure to continue increased funding for
development of munitions manufacturing technology that could
result in reduced production costs for ammunition in the
future. In view of the fact that the Army is the single service
manager for the defense ammunition program, the committee
believes that insufficient priority is being given in the
Army's ManTech program for this critical area. The committee is
aware that the estimated cost of air burst munitions for the
objective individual combat weapon (OICW) will probably limit
their use in training and believes that increased emphasis
should be given to a small arms ammunition ManTech initiative
that is specifically focused on decreasing the overall cost of
the OICW air burst munitions through warhead and fuse cost
reductions.
The committee recommends $34.9 million in PE 78045A for the
Army's manufacturing technology program, an increase of $17.0
million for munitions manufacturing technology (including the
small arms ammunition initiative) and $3.0 million for rotary
wing sustainment manufacturing technology, and $74.1 million in
PE 78011N, an increase of $15.0 million for the Navy's ManTech
program. Elsewhere in this report the committee recommends
additional funding to accelerate new initiatives in the Defense
Logistics Agency's ManTech program.
Environmental quality technology
The budget request contained $12.8 million in PE 62720A for
environmental quality technology, but included no funding for
the Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies (TRIES).
The committee notes that TRIES, working with the Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, has been
developing a computer-based land management model to reduce
costs and time for training area recovery.
The committee supports well focused military environmental
clean-up efforts and recommends $15.8 million in PE 62720A, an
increase of $3.0 million to complete development of the TRIES
computer-based land management model.
Full spectrum active protection
The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology.
The committee is aware that the Army needs a capability to
defend armored vehicles against attack by hit-to-kill anti-tank
guided missiles, as well as kinetic energy and high explosive
anti-tank projectiles.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for
development of full spectrum active protection within the tank
and automotive technology effort.
Future combat vehicle
The budget request contained $39.8 million in PE 62601A for
armored systems modernization.
The committee notes that the Army's armored system
modernization strategy has become more an incidental by-product
of the administrative process of the Army budget than a
commitment to a vision. The consequences of this approach to
modernization increases program instability and reinforces
short term reactive planning rather than adherence to a
strategy. Moreover, the committee believes that the
consequences for not having a comprehensive, coherent, and
enduring armored system modernization strategy are no longer
acceptable.
The committee is encouraged, however, by the Army's vision
for the Army After Next. In particular, the committee fully
supports the attributes and capabilities described by both the
Army and the Quadrennial Defense Review as essential in future
combat vehicles, and believes that the development efforts
essential for their fielding should begin immediately. However,
there is a serious mis-match between what the vision calls for
and the Army's ability without full DOD support and
participation, to execute the necessary experimentation and
demonstration of future alternatives while attempting to
sustain its current aging fleet of over 6,000 M-1 tanks.
The committee understands that the current fleet demands an
exponentially increasing sustainment budget that is depleting
funds intended for incremental modernization of the fleet. Left
unchecked, it would soon take the entire armored systems
modernization budget to sustain an M1 fleet that will have
further compounded its problems by evolving into at least four
different configurations. The Army's current armored systems
modernization budget has been decreased to such a low level
that between the years of 2000 and 2030 the resulting tank
fleet will be composed of only 17 percent modernized M1A2 SEP
tanks, while the remaining 4,000 plus tanks will be in varying
stages of deterioration and questionable deployability. The
committee believes current armored systems cannot be evolved to
meet the critical land warfare requirements identified by the
QDR and as essential to the Army After Next. Thus, a commitment
to decisive action must be made now to redress the armor system
modernization dilemma. To delay is to limit the possibilities
and make them unaffordable.
Therefore, the committee recommends a legislative provision
(Sec. 211) that would direct the Secretary of the Defense to
establish a collaborative combat vehicle demonstration program
between the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA). While the Army has committed $67.0 million of
its fiscal year 2000 RDT&E science and technology request
toward this critical requirement, related DARPA efforts are not
focused to support any similar initiative. The committee
further directs the Secretary to establish the necessary DOD-
level priority for this program to ensure that both the Army
and DARPA complete this effort in an efficient and timely
manner. While the committee understands that the Army fully
intends to pursue this critical modernization initiative, DARPA
participation is also required to enable rapid prototyping,
special contract authorities, and pursuit of high risk, high
gain technologies essential to the success of this program.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
and the Director of DARPA to establish and enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to develop an appropriate
competitive demonstration project that will consider and
evaluate all promising combat vehicle technologies including
lethality, propulsion, mobility, survivability, robotics, human
engineering, and C4ISR technologies. The project will conduct
competitive demonstrations of these technologies integrated
into potential combat vehicle platforms with an objective of
identifying the most promising candidates for a full
development program to begin by fiscal year 2006. The Secretary
and the Director shall provide a report to the Congressional
defense committees with submission of the fiscal year 2001
budget request that outlines the MOA, objective schedule, and
required funding for the joint Army/DARPA project.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0
million for the future combat vehicle modernization program for
fiscal year 2000. Additionally, the committee recommends that
of the amounts authorized and appropriated for DARPA fiscal
year 2000 funding, not less than $38.0 million in PE 63764E and
$18.2 million in PE 62702E shall be for the Army/DARPA future
combat vehicle program.
Geographic synthetic aperture radar
The budget request contained $41.1 million in PE 62784A for
military engineering technology, but included no funding for
geographic synthetic aperture radar (SAR).
The committee notes that an airborne geographic SAR is
being developed to generate high-resolution, three dimensional
maps of the earth. This dual band interferometric SAR will be
able to map above, through, and below the vegetation canopy.
The committee is aware that airborne foliage penetrating
radar may offer potential target identification enhancement to
the Army and recommends $56.1 million in PE 62784A, an increase
of $15.0 million to evaluate dual band airborne interferometric
SAR technology for possible Army applications.
Geo-positioning system--inertial measurement unit integration
The budget request contained $23.0 million in PE 62120A for
sensors and electronics survivability.
The committee notes that uses for the geo-positioning
system (GPS) and inertial measurement units (IMU) include
personnel, weapon and non-weapon system platforms, and an
increasing variety of smart weapons. The burgeoning
applications for these types of systems, coupled with advances
in electronics integration and the emergence of micro electro
mechanical systems (MEMS) technology now make possible full
integration of GPS and MEMS on a single chip that offers the
possibility of dramatic reductions in the cost. Though the
development cost of full GPS-IMU integration may be
unattractive to an individual acquisition program, the
recurring cost savings make such development an imperative for
the Department of Defense as a whole.
The committee strongly supports efforts to reduce the cost
of smart weapons and directs the Secretary of the Army to
establish a focused program to develop a fully integrated GPS-
IMU on a single chip capable of meeting the needs of service
missile, artillery, and other appropriate applications. The
committee is aware that there are disparate efforts in
industry, government laboratories, and academia to reduce the
size and cost of GPS and IMUs which may be leveraged.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for
GPS-IMU chip level integration.
Heart rate variability technology
The budget request contained $70.1 million in PE 62787A for
medical technology.
The committee notes that heart rate variability technology
offers potential for enhancing on-site assessment of disease
and trauma by enabling physiological measurement of the nervous
system functioning and balance. Improvements in these areas
could lead to improved treatment and victim survivability. The
committee believes that this technology, designed for point-of-
injury assessment for emergency response personnel in civilian
and military trauma environments, may also have significant
applications for enhancing early detection and prevention of
chemical and biological agent effects.
The committee urges the Army Medical Command to pursue
testing of this technology and to assess its potential for
improved chem-bio detection and prevention, as well as other
military emergency response applications, and recommends $74.1
million, an increase of $ 4.0 million in PE 62787A.
High energy laser test facility
The budget request contained $14.2 million in PE 65605A for
the high energy laser system test facility (HELSTF).
The committee notes that the Army has taken the initiative
to develop and publish a Directed Energy Master Plan, laying
out a road map for future high power directed energy technology
exploitation. However, the committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense does not have a central directed energies
(DE) technology clearing house to identify, assess, and develop
the full range and potentials of these promising technologies.
The committee further notes that Space and Missile Defense
Command (SMDC) has proposed that HELSTF be the premier joint
service open-air laser test facility for all high power DOD
laser programs, providing testing for laser lethality and
system effectiveness as well as threat exploitation, directed
energy bio-effects, and susceptibility testing. A high-power
laser facility capable of testing lasers over a broad range of
wavelengths is required to support all these critical
parameters. The committee believes that leveraging past
investments in HELSTF infrastructure and building on past Army
research and development in high power lasers is a cost
effective means of developing next generation high power lasers
capable of operating with variable wavelengths and pulse
formats.
The committee supports the use of the HELSTF to focus
development of high power free electron and other solid-state
lasers as a complement to various chemical laser development
programs, and recommends a provision (Sec. 241) that would
direct the Secretary of Defense to designate the Commander,
SMDC as the DOD executive agent for oversight of high-power
solid state laser and directed energy technologies with
potential weapons applications. The committee notes that the
HELSTF is currently controlled by SMDC and directs that HELSTF
be established as the DOD center of excellence for high-power,
solid state laser and directed energy technologies.
Additionally, the committee recommends the establishment of a
relationship between Livermore National Laboratory, with its
high power laser expertise, and appropriate industry
participants to create a national center of excellence for high
power solid-state laser development.
The committee recommends $38.2 million for the HELSTF in PE
65605A, an increase of $20.0 million for assessment and
development of high energy solid state lasers and other
directed energy technologies, and an increase of $4.0 million
for evaluation of the Navy's free electron laser technology
program.
High mobility artillery rocket system
The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63778A for
the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) product improvement
program (PIP), and included $6.0 million for the MLRS high
mobility rocket system (HIMARS).
The committee notes that the HIMARS is a C-130
transportable, wheeled version of the MLRS launcher, capable of
firing all rockets and missiles in the current and future MLRS
family of missiles. The committee is aware that the Department
of Defense recognizes the importance of the improved
deployability provided by HIMARS and supports accelerated
development of the program.
The committee strongly encourages accelerated development
and fielding of HIMARS and recommends $67.4 million in PE
63778A, an increase of $30.9 million for HIMARS.
Joint service small arms program
The budget request contained $4.9 million in PE 63607A for
the joint service small arm program.
The committee is aware that the present family of
individual weapons as well as the objective individual combat
weapon (OICW) for the future will have a 5.56mm capability. The
committee is informed that accuracy of the 5.56mm round can be
improved significantly as was the 7.62mm round with relatively
little expense.
The committee believes that, despite the emergence of
``smart weapons,'' the importance of individual combat weapons
will remain and that ammunition for these weapons should be as
accurate as modern production technology will allow. The
committee also notes that there is a new technology which
reduces drag in the barrel that offers much higher projectile
velocity from the same caliber small arms cartridges. The
committee is also aware that features such as laser ranging and
target tracking which are important for the OICW air-burst
round could be included in the initial OICW with a small
additional investment.
Therefore, the committee recommends $9.9 million, an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63607A for OICW improvements,
development of more accurate 5.56 ammunition, and assessment of
new high-velocity small arms projectile technology.
Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS)
The budget request contained $11.5 million in PE 64770A for
system improvements to the Joint STARS Common Ground Station
(CGS).
The committee notes the proven success of the Joint STARS
system in both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Joint
Endeavor in Bosnia and its current support to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization's Operation Allied Force. A key
feature of Joint STARS is the secure, encrypted, anti-jam
Surveillance Control Data Link (SCDL), which links the Air
Force's E-8 Joint STARS aircraft to the Army's ground support
modules and CGSs, enabling real-time data transfer of command
and control information between the aircraft and ground
stations.
The committee is aware that the ongoing SCDL System
Improvement Program (SIP), which eliminates obsolete parts and
updates older digital circuit boards with state-of-the-art,
software-based array boards, will increase data transfer rates
as well as reduce component size, weight, and power
requirements by as much as 50 percent. Consistent with past
committee actions and based on the benefits of the SIP, the
committee recommends $19.5 million, an increase of $8.0 million
in PE 64770A to complete this upgrade.
Kwajalein missile range modernization
The budget request contained $140.3 million in PE 65301A
for Kwajalein missile range (KMR) modernization.
The committee is concerned that delays in KMR modernization
will increase risk in key tests of the national missile defense
(NMD) system. This modernization effort includes replacement of
obsolete components, upgrade of hardware and software
architectures, and provision for remote operation of range
sensors and instrumentation. The committee believes that
accelerating modernization of the range will not only reduce
NMD development risks, but will substantially reduce annual KMR
operations and maintenance costs.
The committee recommends $148.3 million in PE 65301A, an
increase of $8.0 million for KMR modernization.
Lightweight x-band radar
The budget request contained $24.9 million in PE 12419A for
the Aerostat Joint Project Office, but included no funds for
lightweight x-band radar technology.
The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization has examined the potential of lightweight
x-band radar technology for application to the Army's Aerostat
project and found it to be useful to the requirement for fire
control radar.
The committee recommends that the Army evaluate this
technology from within existing funds and make a recommendation
to the Congressional defense committees providing the results
of the evaluation.
Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment
The budget request contained $9.70 million in PE 64807A for
medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment,
including $491,000 for the Life Support Trauma and Transport
(LSTAT) system EMD program.
The committee has learned that the EMD program is
underfunded and that it could easily be completed in fiscal
year 2000 if properly resourced. Furthermore, the committee
understands that the Army does support the LSTAT program and
plans to procure the system on a multiyear basis.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $13.2 million in PE
64807A, an increase of $3.5 million to complete LSTAT EMD in
fiscal year 2000.
MedTeams
The budget request contained $16.4 million in PE 62716A for
human factors engineering technology, but included no funding
for continuation of the medical teams (MedTeams) program.
The committee notes that the MedTeams effort provides
development and testing of methods to provide improved
coordination of emergency medical teams.
The committee supports development of improved medical care
and recommends $19.8 million in PE 62716A, an increase of $3.4
million.
Night vision advanced technology
The budget request contained $36.6 million in PE 63710A for
night vision advanced technology.
The committee notes that damage control capability is
critical to military survivability. Sensor technology has been
and is being developed for ground forces to improve night
vision situational awareness. Damage control personnel also
require night vision situational awareness. The committee
supports adaptation of emerging sensor technology to develop
helmet mounted sensors for firefighters and damage control
personnel.
The committee recommends $39.6 million in PE 63710A, an
increase of $3.0 million for helmet mounted sensors for
firefighters and damage control personnel.
Panoramic night vision goggle
The budget request contained $20.1 million in PE 62709A for
night vision technology.
The committee notes that wide field of view night vision
capability for aviation is increasingly critical as operations
migrate from daylight to dark. Existing night vision equipment
has a very narrow field of view, excessive weight, and very
poor depth perception in inclement weather.
The committee supports development of superior night vision
equipment to improve safety and increase the capability of our
forces. The committee recommends $30.1 million in PE 62709A, an
increase of $10.0 million for the panoramic night vision
goggle, including emerging technologies that may be generally
applicable to night vision improvement.
Passive millimeter wave imaging
The budget request contained $23.0 million in PE 62120A for
sensors and electronics survivability, but contained no funding
for passive millimeter wave imaging.
The committee is aware that passive millimeter wave and
associated devices may offer the ability to solve problems in
the nap-of-the-earth wire and other obstacle collision
avoidance for the Apache and other aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
passive millimeter wave imaging for obstacle/collision
avoidance.
Patriot anti-cruise missile defense
The budget request contained no funding in PE 23801A for
the Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM) seeker upgrade.
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736), the conferees directed
the Secretary of the Army to complete a rigorous PACM test
program and to evaluate the effectiveness of the PACM seeker
against a full range of cruise missile threats. The committee
notes that a preliminary evaluation has been completed prior to
flight testing of the seeker, and that a more thorough
evaluation will be possible only after the flight testing is
completed. Without this more thorough evaluation, the committee
is unable to reach a definitive conclusion on the ability of
PACM to meet the cruise missile threat cost effectively.
The committee understands that the Patriot advanced
capability-3 (PAC-3) will have substantial capability against
cruise missiles, in addition to providing effective ballistic
missile defense. The committee also understands that the PACM
seeker would be used to upgrade older PAC-1 missiles that have
very limited capabilities to defend against ballistic missile
attack. The committee notes that a thorough analysis of the
cost trade-offs between acquisition of PACM and PAC-3 is also
needed prior to consideration of PACM acquisition.
The committee recommends no funding in PE 23801A for PACM.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to prepare a
report, following completion of PACM flight testing, with a
thorough assessment of PACM capabilities and the opportunity
costs of additional PACM development and eventual PACM
procurement. The report shall be submitted to the Congressional
defense committees prior to any budget request for additional
PACM funds.
Plasma energy pyrolysis system
The budget request contained $12.8 million in PE 62720A for
environmental quality technology, but included no funds for the
plasma energy pyrolysis system (PEPS).
A total of $15.9 million has been invested in this program
to develop a transportable PEPS prototype which is now
undergoing testing. The committee is aware that PEPS testing is
intended to determine its ability to destroy, vitrify, and
dispose of several hazardous waste streams. The Army intends to
await completion of the PEPS evaluation program and analysis of
the results to determine cost and performance of PEPS prior to
proceeding further in acquisition.
The committee supports development of safe, economical
means to eliminate hazardous waste and encourages the Army to
continue its efforts with PEPS.
Proximity fuzing for dual-purpose improved conventional munition
submunitions
The budget request contained $39.9 million in PE 63004A for
the Army's weapons and munitions advanced technology
development program and $101.5 million in PE 63795N for the
Navy's land attack technology development program.
The committee notes the common use by the Army and the Navy
of the M80 grenade submunition. This submunition is now
dispensed by the dual-purpose improved conventional munition
(DPICM) 120 mm mortar, the 5-inch gun, 155mm cannon
projectiles, the multi-launch rocket system (MLRS) warhead, the
extended range guided munition (ERGM), and the Best Buy
projectile advanced technology demonstration. The committee
also notes that Army and Navy studies and tests indicate that
lethality gains of 10 percent to 200 percent are possible if a
height of burst proximity fusing option were incorporated in
the M80 submunition. The committee understands that the Army
and the Navy are teaming to develop a proximity fuzing feature
that could be added to the existing self-destruct fuze in the
M80 grenade and greatly increase the armor penetration and
anti-personnel lethality of the grenade. The committee believes
that a joint program to develop a common proximity fuze for
DPICM submunitions could capitalize on the efforts of both the
Army and the Navy by deferring the development and testing of
individual service prototypes and result in significantly
reduced costs through the economy of scale that would be gained
by the production of a single fuse and submunition for both
services.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
63004A and $2.5 million in PE 63795N to establish a joint Army/
Navy program to develop a proximity fuze for DPICM
submunitions. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army
and the Secretary of the Navy to report to the Congressional
defense committees on the establishment of the joint program
and the plan and funding for the proximity fuze development
with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Security and intelligence activities
The budget request contained no funding for security and
intelligence activities in PE 35128A.
The committee notes the government's increasing dependence
on computer-based information systems and the growing world-
wide threat to these systems. It is also aware of the Army
Intelligence Command's (INSCOM) state-of-the-art land
information warfare activity (LIWA) and its developing
capability to protect the worldwide computer infrastructure.
The LIWA has recently demonstrated a significantly enhanced
capability for responding to computer systems viruses and
attacks by rapidly identifying and providing protection and
corrective actions to all supported systems. The committee is
also aware that the Department of Defense has recognized the
potential of the LIWA to offer significant improvements in
providing timely assessments of intelligence information to the
warfighter.
The committee strongly supports improved and strengthened
information system protection and processing and recommends
$10.0 million in PE 35128A for the INSCOM LIWA.
Self-destruct fuse
The committee notes that there are a number of apparently
duplicative efforts within service and defense-wide programs to
pursue self-destruct fuzes for munitions. The Army has recently
type-classified self-destruct fuses for some Army munitions,
and yet it appears that there is no Department wide program
development to the share the Army's completed development or to
coordinate other service efforts.
The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense conduct
a study of unexploded ordnance problems and establish a
defense-wide program to develop affordable, reliable self-
destruct fuses for munitions, and report the results of this
study and the actions being by December 31, 1999.
Semi-automated imagery processor
The budget request contained no funding in PE 63766A for
tactical electronic surveillance systems.
The committee notes that the semi-automated imagery
processor (SAIP) is an advanced concept technology
demonstration (ACTD) designed to provide automatic target
cueing to support imagery analysts. Further, the tool provides
a limited capability for automated target recognition. While
the SAIP is not perfected, the committee notes the development
effort and results to date. The committee remains concerned
that current and future imagery collection systems are
overwhelming the limited number of imagery analysts available
to put ``eyes on target.'' Automated capabilities to reduce
imagery analyst workloads are critically needed. The committee
believes that the SAIP represents the best effort to date to
provide such radar imagery automation. However, the Department
has failed to provide sufficient funding to transition a needed
ACTD capability to an operational application.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
63766A to transition the SAIP effort from an ACTD to an
operational capability. The committee notes that the SAIP is
not a total solution and expects the Army to continue efforts
to refine and improve the SAIP.
Small arms fire control system
The budget request contained $54.9 million in PE 64802A for
weapons and munitions, but included no funding for the small
arms fire control system (SAFCS).
SAFCS is a lightweight optical sight that corrects the
aimpoint of small arms. The committee notes that the SAFCS
offers potential for improved accuracy and probability of hit
for small arms.
The committee supports improvements in small arms accuracy
and recommends $57.4 million in PE 64802A, an increase of $2.5
million for engineering development and type classification for
SAFCS.
Tactical voice control for maneuver control system
The budget request contained $45.1 million in PE 23740A for
the maneuver control system (MCS).
The committee notes that tactical voice recognition systems
have been proven to provide more accurate, faster and robust
command and control than conventional input/output devices.
The committee recommends $46.1 million for PE 23740A , an
increase of $1.0 million for tactical voice control for MCS.
Trichloromelamine testing
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201) directed the Secretary of the Army to
conduct toxicity studies of trichloromelamine (TCM)
disinfectant to provide appropriate Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) registration for Army future procurement from TCM
suppliers, thus ensuring competition and recommend additional
funding for this purpose.
The committee notes that the Army has failed to complete
directed testing and, therefore, reiterates its earlier
direction that the Army complete testing and EPA registration
for TCM as rapidly as possible from within funding in PE 63002A
for medical advanced technology.
University and industrial research centers
The budget request contained $47.1 million in PE 61104A for
university and industrial research centers, and included $5.9
million for advanced displays.
The committee notes that, despite the importance of
advanced and interactive displays for the Army After Next,
funding for the advanced and interactive displays consortium
has been reduced over the past four years. The committee
supports the development of innovative, cost-effective displays
and recommends $48.5 million in PE 61104A, an increase of $1.4
million for the advanced and interactive displays consortium.
Navy RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $7,984.0 million for Navy
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $8,358.5
million, an increase of $374.5 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Navy
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle
The budget request contained $94.8 million in PE 63611M for
the advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV).
The AAAV is a self-deploying, high water-speed, armored,
amphibious assault vehicle capable of operating in all weather
and in nuclear, chemical, and biological environments. The
committee notes that the AAAV is the Marine Corps highest
priority ground modernization requirement and that additional
funding will permit incorporation of improvements identified
during testing, reduce program technical risk, and position the
program for acceleration of initial operational capability from
fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2005.
The committee recommends $121.2 million in PE 63611M, an
increase of $26.4 million, for the AAAV.
Advanced anti-radiation guided missile
The budget request contained $23.6 million in PE 25601N,
including $10.8 million to continue development and
demonstration of the advanced anti-radiation guided missile
(AARGM).
The committee notes that ARRGM is a Phase III small
business innovative research (SBIR) program to develop and
demonstrate a dual-mode guidance section on a high-speed anti-
radiation missile (HARM). Program objectives are to demonstrate
an effective and affordable lethal suppression of enemy air
defenses (SEAD) capability against mobile, relocatable, or
fixed air defense threats in the presence of potential emitter
shutdown or other anti-radiation missile countermeasures.
The ARRGM technology demonstration program is an outgrowth
of a Phase I and Phase II competitive SBIR program, which
successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a dual-mode seeker
to address radar ``shut-down'' anti-radiation missile
countermeasures. The dual-mode technology being developed in
the AARGM program has demonstrated very high potential to solve
the problem of ``shut-down'' not only in the HARM, the primary
SEAD weapon, but has also demonstrated the potential for
integration with other missile airframes.
The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 25601N, an
increase of $10.0 million to continue risk reduction, test, and
other field activities to prepare for a potential fiscal year
2001 Milestone II decision to enter engineering and
manufacturing development.
Advanced waterjet propulsor demonstration program
The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for
Navy advanced technology demonstrations, but included no funds
for demonstration of an advanced waterjet propulsor for future
naval applications.
The committee notes that a number of propulsion
technologies are being considered for use in the DD-21 land
attack destroyer and other future naval ships, with the goal of
increased operational performance and reduced acquisition and
life-cycle costs.
The committee notes the development under an extension of
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's maritime
technology program of an advanced waterjet propulsor which
could meet operational performance, signature and cost
reduction requirements for the DD-21 and other naval ships. The
committee notes proposals for \1/4\-scale at-sea demonstration
and cavitation tunnel testing of the waterjet propulsor to
validate critical performance criteria and potential
application of the propulsor to the DD-21 or other naval ships.
The committee urges that the Secretary of the Navy assess
the requirement for further development, demonstration, and
evaluation of advanced waterjet propulsor technology and
provide to the Congressional defense committees by December 1,
1999, a report which includes the Secretary's recommendations
regarding the demonstration, a program execution plan, and Navy
funding for the program.
Affordable advanced acoustical arrays
The budget request contained $115.8 million in PE 63561N
for advanced submarine systems development, including $71.6
million for advanced submarine combat systems development.
The committee notes the Navy's continued development of
advanced sonar arrays for surface, submarine, and distributed
surveillance systems, including single and multi-line towed
arrays, conformal-hull mounted arrays, and advanced arrays for
use in the fixed-distributed and advanced-deployable systems.
The committee strongly supports the development and
demonstration of all-optical array and other key enabling
technologies for advanced acoustical arrays that could
significantly improve array performance and dramatically reduce
the cost of future acoustical array systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63561N to accelerate the development and transition of all-
optical array and other key enabling technologies to advanced
towed, hull-mounted, and distributed acoustical array systems.
Analysis of alternatives for follow-on support jammer
The budget request contained $87.3 million in PE 64270N for
engineering and manufacturing development of the EA-6B
electronic countermeasures aircraft system. The budget request
states that a requirement exists to begin planning and analysis
of alternatives for a command and control warfare (C2W)
replacement for the EA-6B aircraft, however, no funds were
requested for this purpose.
The committee notes the high demands that are being placed
on the EA-6B aircraft as an electronic countermeasures weapons
system, projections that there will not be enough EA-6B
aircraft to meet mission requirements beyond 2015, and
considerations to retire the EA-6B in 2015. The committee notes
further that a mission needs statement for a C2W platform that
would replace the EA-6B and achieve initial operational
capability in 2012 is being reviewed by the Navy. The committee
understands that a C2W follow-on platform would incorporate air
vehicle enhancements that would reduce operational and
maintenance costs, improve reliability, and significantly
increase command, control, and operational effectiveness. The
committee believes that the Navy should initiate an analysis of
alternatives for a C2W follow-on platform which will determine
the most cost-effective approach for replacing the EA-6B in the
radar support jamming mission.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63XXXN to initiate the analysis of alternatives for a C2W
replacement for the EA-6B aircraft, and directs the
establishment of a separate concept exploration/product
definition and risk reduction program element for the program.
Aquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment
The budget request contained $8.2 million in PE 65873M for
Marine Corps program-wide support, but included no funding for
acquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment.
The committee recognizes the potential for groundwater
contamination at military bases due to fuel spills, hazardous
chemical handling, and waste disposal. The committee recommends
$9.7 million in PE 65873M, an increase of $1.5 million to
conduct an analysis and acquifer mapping of a candidate
military site to establish contamination identification.
Aviation depot maintenance technology
The budget request contained $70.8 million in PE 63721N for
environmental protection.
The committee notes that new environmentally friendly
repair processes are being developed that offer significant
productivity improvements and potential cost savings. To this
end, the Congress provided $2.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for
the development and demonstration of aviation depot maintenance
technologies that will significantly reduce maintenance and
repair costs and reduce or eliminate hazardous waste and
pollution products.
The committee recommends $73.8 million in PE 63721N, an
increase of $3.0 million to complete the program for
demonstration of advanced maintenance technologies for removal
of coatings from large aircraft, cleaning and stripping of
metal surfaces, and application of tungsten carbide coatings to
aircraft landing gear and hydraulic components.
Beartrap nonlinear dynamics and environmental characterization
The budget request contained $17.8 million in PE 63254N for
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) system developments, including
$5.3 million for Project Beartrap.
The committee notes that the budget request for Beartrap
supports hardware and software developments for advanced
capability acoustic and non-acoustic sensors, as well as data
collection and analysis for threat assessment and environmental
characterization. The committee understands that basic research
in nonlinear dynamic stochastic resonance (NDSR), supported by
the Office of Naval Research, has advanced to the point that it
offers explanations for many observed physical phenomena, and
it offers the potential to develop significantly improved
acoustic and non-acoustic AWS sensor systems. The committee
believes that NDSR technology offers a significant opportunity
to enhance the capabilities of Beartrap at a time when evolving
ASW requirements indicate the critical need to integrate these
latest relevant technologies. Specific areas include
characterization of the ocean nonlinear dynamics environment,
application of NDSR technology in advanced Beartrap sensors,
and validation of NDSR ASW performance.
The committee also notes that the Navy requires extensive
environmental data to achieve effective performance from the
extended echo ranging (EER) devices used in shallow littoral
waters. These active acoustic devices are key to naval airborne
ASW performance. The Beartrap program is well suited to collect
this environmental data.
The committee recommends $23.8 million in PE 63254N for ASW
systems development, an increase of $6.0 million for Project
Beartrap for the purposes outlined above.
C-2 eight-blade composite propeller system
The budget request contained $53.3 million in PE 25633N for
improvements in operational Navy aviation and aviation support
systems.
The committee is aware that the Navy is seeking a solution
to operational limitations encountered with the propeller
system used on E-2C and C-2A aircraft. The current propeller
system incorporates technology developed in the 1950's and the
1960's, is difficult and expensive to maintain, and is no
longer in production. Following committee recommendations in
its report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) for initiation of a
development and demonstration of an eight-blade composite
propeller for E-2C and C-2A aircraft, the Navy began a program
for design, development, test, and production of the propeller
system. The committee notes that the program includes flight
and ground test of the new propeller system for the E-2
aircraft, but includes only ground tests for the new propeller
on the C-2 aircraft.
The committee recommends $58.3 million in PE 25633N, an
increase of $5.0 million to support flight testing the new
propeller system on the C-2 aircraft sequentially with the E-2
flight test program.
Claymore marine
The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for
the Navy's advanced technology demonstration program, including
$3.9 million for the Claymore Marine advanced technology
demonstration.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 million in PE
63792N for risk reduction and to maintain the schedule for the
Claymore Marine advanced technology demonstration.
Cooperative engagement capability
The budget request contained $114.9 million in PE 63658N to
continue hardware and software engineering, integration, test
and evaluation of the Navy's cooperative engagement capability
(CEC).
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736) directed the Secretary
of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees
at least quarterly on the interoperability problems between
CEC, ship self-defense, and the Aegis combat direction system
that were first encountered in 1997 during fleet operational
test and evaluation of the systems and the Navy's plan for and
progress in resolving these problems.
The committee has reviewed the Secretary's first quarterly
report and notes that the Navy has made significant progress in
developing a plan that focuses on interoperability to support
carrier battle group deployments in the near term, and on
force-level systems engineering to coordinate requirements,
capital investments, development, and installation of new
system capabilities for the fleet in the far term. The Program
Executive Office for Theater Surface Combatants has been
created to provide a common management structure for all
surface ship combat direction systems and interfacing systems,
including systems integration and interoperability of CEC,
Aegis, the advanced combat direction system, and related joint
command and control systems. The committee also notes that the
Navy has significantly increased land-based system engineering
analysis and testing capabilities for combat systems and is
establishing a shore-based, distributed engineering test
capability that provides the ability to address battle group
level combat system interoperability issues and to validate
operational tactics, techniques and procedures prior to
shipboard installation of the systems. The committee recognizes
the potential provided by the Distributed Engineering Plant for
reducing the cost of system, acquisition, testing, and training
and encourages the Navy to continue to develop and support its
shore-based, distributed engineering test capability. The
committee notes further that the Navy has realigned and
reprogrammed the funds necessary to address these issues.
The committee understands that recent land-based and at-sea
testing has demonstrated continuing progress in resolving
combat systems interoperability issues. However, the committee
believes that resolution of the interoperability issues will
require a stable program plan and funding and a coordinated
effort on the part of the Navy and the supporting system
contractors.
The committee recommends $114.9 million in PE 63658N to
continue CEC development, systems integration, and test and
evaluation.
Cruiser conversion
The budget request contained $28.5 million in PE 64307N and
$11.5 million in PE 64567N for cruiser conversion program
design and engineering studies but did not include any
procurement funds.
Aegis class cruisers are the Navy's premier air defense and
strike warfare platforms. The first ships of this class have
now been in service over 15 years and some of their systems are
approaching technical obsolescence. The committee understands
that, in order to protect its investment in these highly
capable ships, the Navy is planning to extensively upgrade the
Aegis cruisers' combat systems and engineering equipment
beginning in fiscal year 2002. These upgrades include new
computer systems, cooperative engagement and theater ballistic
missile defense capabilities, land attack and area air defense
commander functions, and other hull and mechanical
improvements.
The committee supports upgrading these cruisers and
recommends $37.5 million in PE 64307N and $17.5 million in PE
64567N, a total increase of $15.0 million, including $9.0
million in PE 64307N and $6.0 million in PE 64567N for
engineering studies associated with expansion of the conversion
program to include all Aegis cruisers.
Distributed surveillance system
The budget request contained $14.9 million in PE 64784N for
continued development of the distributed surveillance system.
The Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) program
includes both fixed and relocatable acoustic sensor systems to
detect and track diesel and nuclear powered submarines. The
Fixed Distributed System (FDS) is a series of permanently
installed acoustic arrays and the Advanced Deployable System
(ADS), currently under development, will comprise sensors that
can be rapidly deployed in littoral environments.
The committee understands that the incorporation of fiber
optic sensor technologies in acoustic arrays can greatly reduce
maintenance requirements for these systems. Littoral anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) operations pose complex challenges in
the evaluation and analysis of acoustic sensor data due to the
high volume of traffic and diverse environmental conditions.
The committee is concerned that the ADS program does not
adequately address automation of detection and tracking
functions, connectivity to the Global Command and Control
System (GCCS) and web-based network centric warfare systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $33.9 million, an
increase of $19.0 million in PE 64784N for the distributed
surveillance system including $8.0 million for the continued
application of remote-powered fiber optic sensor technologies
for FDS acoustic arrays; and $11.0 million for the development
of improved detection and tracking algorithms to provide
increased automation for the ADS and an interface among it, the
GCCS, and other network centric warfare systems.
DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration
The budget request contained $42.0 million in PE 63217N for
development of air systems and weapons advanced technology. No
funds were requested for continuation of the DP-2 thrust
vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration.
DP-2 is a proof of concept program to demonstrate thrust
vector control to achieve vertical takeoff and conventional
takeoff capabilities in a one-half scale flight test vehicle.
This technology offers the potential for a low cost, medium
range aircraft of advanced composite construction.
The committee recommends $47.0 million in PE 63217N, an
increase of $5.0 million to complete the proof-of-concept
flight test demonstration and provide the basis for a potential
Department of the Navy decision to proceed with a full-scale
aircraft development program.
E-2C radar modernization
The budget request contained $16.1 million in PE 24152N for
the E-2C maritime surveillance aircraft, including $12.1
million for the E-2C radar modernization program.
The committee notes that the radar modernization program is
an advanced technology transition demonstration of a new E-2C
radar system that will provide improved airborne surveillance
capabilities for carrier battle groups engaged in littoral
operations. However, funding for the radar modernization
program was sharply reduced in this year's budget request. The
committee understands that restoration of the funds would
accelerate the development and integration of the new radar
system and enable participation in the Navy's early operational
assessment of the cooperative engagement capability (CEC) with
the E-2C. The committee also understands that this would
accelerate the E-2C CEC demonstration by one year, reduce risk,
and provide the opportunity to forward-fit the capability into
new production E-2C aircraft. The committee notes that in
addition to demonstrating the potential for significant
improvements in airborne surveillance support for littoral
operations, the radar improvement program also addresses major
obsolescence and reliability issues associated with the current
E-2C radar system.
The committee recommends $31.1 million in PE 24152N,
including an increase of $15.0 million for the E-2C radar
modernization program.
Electric drive propulsion for Navy ships
The budget request contained $108.3 million in PE 63513N
for shipboard system component development, including $25.7
million for integrated power systems (IPS) development.
The committee notes the Navy's increased interest in the
development of electric drive propulsion technology and the
potential use of electric drive propulsion in future surface
combatants and submarines, including insertion of an electric
drive propulsion system in the DD-21 land attack destroyer and
in the New Attack Submarine (NSSN) programs. A common
integrated electric drive system appears to offer significant
advantages, however, implementation of such a system has been
limited by the technology needed for reliable electric motors
of the power (approximately 30,000 to 50,000 shaft horse power
(shp)) required. The committee is aware that several
alternative electric propulsion motor concepts have been
proposed that are of varying degrees of technical maturity.
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-746) directed the Secretary
of the Navy to provide a report to the Congress which evaluates
the installation of a common integrated electric drive system
for DD-21, a NSSN variant, and the next-generation CV(X)
aircraft carrier with both a common integrated electric drive
system and a conventional mechanical drive system. The
Secretary's report, dated March 1, 1999, states that the Navy
has concluded that the radial-gap PM motor possesses the power
density, acoustic performance, and maturity of technology to be
a viable propulsion motor common to the broadest ranges of
ships and that the Navy is currently considering expanding its
IPS development to a corporate Navy program that will include
state-of-the-art permanent magnet motor technology.
The committee recommends $108.3 million in PE 63513N,
including $25.7 million for integrated power systems
development. The committee will consider recommendations by the
Secretary for further development and demonstration of electric
drive propulsion technology for Navy ships which identify
necessary funding and provide a program plan for the
development.
Electro-optical framing technologies
The budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 35206N for
airborne reconnaissance systems, including $2.0 million for
electro-optic (EO) framing technologies.
The committee continues to support development of the
revolutionary digital EO framing technologies with on-chip
forward motion compensation (FMC). The committee notes the Navy
F-14 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Podded System--Completely
Digital (TARPS CD) demonstration system using this technology
has recently been successfully employed at sea. Based on this
success, the committee believes there is a need for additional
TARPS CD risk-reduction pods and that the Navy should expand
this effort. Further, the committee believes that the EO
framing with on-chip FMC should be fully developed and improved
to satisfy current and future applications on aircraft such as
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles and other tactical fighter
aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends $10.0 million in PE
35206N, an increase of $5.0 million for continued development
of EO framing with on-chip FMC technologies. These efforts
shall include development of the high quantum efficiency infra-
red framing chip, precision strike improvements, and step-
framing technologies.
Environmentally safe energetic materials
The budget request contained $34.3 million in PE 63609N for
development and demonstration of improvements in Navy
conventional munitions. No funds were requested to continue the
program for development of environmentally safe energetic
materials.
The Congress has supported the accelerated development and
demonstration of energetic materials and processes for
explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics for use in undersea,
surface, and other weapons systems, which minimize or eliminate
any adverse environmental impact normally associated with these
materials in production and demilitarization. These new
environmentally safe materials are expected to meet insensitive
munitions and system performance requirements while lowering
the total ownership costs of the weapons systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63609N to continue the development of environmentally safe
energetic materials.
Extended range guided munition and projectile common guidance
The budget request contained $101.5 million in PE 63795N
for gun weapons system technology demonstration and validation,
including $37.7 million for continued development of the EX-171
extended range guided munition (ERGM).
The committee notes that the ERGM projectile, the modified
5-inch, 62 caliber gun, and a land attack missile comprise the
Navy's near-term program for improving the Navy's surface fire
support capability.
The committee is aware that technical problems in
development of the ERGM projectile have caused schedule delays
and potential increases in program costs, and that the system
contractor's decision to relocate the ERGM development program
to a new site has only exacerbated these delays and increased
costs. The committee believes that while the technology issues
facing the ERGM program are low to medium risk, additional
effort will be required to control potential cost growth and to
minimize any further delay in fielding ERGM to the fleet.
The committee notes that both the Navy and the Army are
pursuing the development of projectile guidance and control
that will use the global positioning system (GPS) and rugged
inertial navigation systems (INS). The current guidance and
control system for the Navy's ERGM uses mid-1990's technology
that typically accounts for at least 50 percent of the total
projectile cost. The committee is aware that the Navy and the
Army have been modestly investing in the development of micro
electro-mechanical sensor (MEMS) technologies that can
significantly reduce the cost of navigation systems that use
GPS/INS guidance. Use of MEMS to upgrade the baseline (non-
MEMS) guidance section would save at least 10 percent of the
total cost of each ERGM. If the MEMS system were packaged to
fit within the NATO standard fuze, the resulting guidance
integrated fuze that could be used by the Army, Navy, Marines,
and NATO allies in a variety of current and future projectiles
would reduce the cost of the ERGM up to 40 percent. The
potential production base for MEMS GPS/INS guidance and control
and make low-cost, precision-guided munitions a reality for all
services and NATO allies.
The committee recommends that the Navy and the Army
capitalize on the development of MEMS GPS/INS technology by
incorporating the technology in the ERGM projectile, and
establishing a joint program for the development of common
guidance and control for cannon-fired projectiles. Such a
program could leverage technologies developed by the Competent
Munitions Advanced Technology Demonstration, Multifunction
Fuze, and ERGM programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63795N for ERGM baseline development and to accelerate
integration of MEMS-based GPS/INS into the ERGM, and an
increase $4.0 million to initiate the joint Projectile Common
Guidance program. The committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy and the Secretary of the Army to report to the
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 2001 budget request, the program plan, schedule,
and funding for the joint Projectile Common Guidance program.
F/A-18C/D BOL chaff countermeasure
The budget request contained $315.7 million in PE 24136N
for F/A-18 aircraft operational systems development, including
$169.1 million for the development of improvements to fielded
F/A-18 aircraft. No funds were requested to continue the
certification of BOL chaff countermeasures for the F/A-18C/D.
The committee notes that the LAU-138A/A Guided Missile
Launcher Set and its associated chaff countermeasures (RR184
and RR189), commonly referred to as BOL chaff, have been
qualified and deployed on the F-14 aircraft. The launcher
significantly increases aircrew/aircraft survivability and
mission effectiveness by dispensing increased quantities of
countermeasures against radar homing and infra-red missiles
that are dispensed from the rear of the aircraft launcher rail
without displacing other aircraft weapons from the launcher
rail. The committee further notes that Phase I integration
testing of the LAU138A/A on the F/A-18C/D aircraft will be
completed in fiscal year 1999. However, the committee
understands that funding for completion of Phase 2 of the F/A-
18C/D qualification program, which would lead to a production
decision is insufficiently funded.
The committee recommends $318.2 million in PE 24136N, an
increase of $2.5 million to complete Phase 2 testing and
qualification of the LAU 138A/A BOL chaff countermeasure on the
F/A-18C/D strike fighter.
Free electron laser
The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 62111N for
applied research in surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons
technology, and $14.2 million in PE 65605A for the high energy
laser system test facility (HELSTF).
The committee understands that the Department of Energy is
considering a technology program for development and
demonstration of a free electron laser that operates in the
infrared spectrum and desires to evaluate the technology for
potential ship self-defense applications. A program has been
proposed for upgrade of the free electron laser demonstration
facility for applied research in the potential use of tunable
free electron lasers as countermeasures against anti-ship and
anti-aircraft missile infrared seekers.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62111N to initiate the demonstration facility upgrade program,
and an increase of $4.0 million in PE 65605A for evaluation of
this technology by the DOD HELSTF to determine suitability to
address Navy requirements. The committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees
with the fiscal year 2001 budget request, a Navy supported
program plan and DOD funding required to complete the project.
The committee further directs the Commander, U.S. Army Space
and Missile Defense Command, as DOD executive agent for high
power solid-state laser technology, to provide a report
containing the results of the HELSTF evaluation of the proposed
free electron laser technology program prior to a Navy request
for funding for the demonstration facility upgrade program.
Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system technology
The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for
applied research in command, control, and communications
technology.
The Congress provided $1.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for
development and demonstration of the technology for hybrid
fiberoptic/wireless communications systems. The committee
understands that the application of this technology to
shipboard communications systems would combine the
characteristic flexibility and mobility of wireless base
stations with the security of point-to-point fiberoptic
communications to achieve increased mobility and security while
reducing the effects of frequency interference.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
62232N to continue the development of hybrid fiberoptic/
wireless communication system technology.
Hyper-spectral analysis
The budget request contained $12.1 million in PE 65867N,
including $10.5 million for the Navy Force Tactical
Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP), $10.1 million
in PE 27247F for Air Force TENCAP, and $7.8 million in PE
63232D8 for automatic target recognition.
The committee understands that hyperspectral sensor systems
could provide the capability to detect and identify targets
that are not discernible with conventional sensors by
exploiting the spectral signature of both the target and the
environment. The committee also understands that the Navy and
the Department of Defense now believe that recent design and
component technology innovations have reached a level of
maturity where hyperspectral technology can be used to provide
enhanced capabilities to existing and planned airborne
reconnaissance sensors. The committee notes hyperspectral
technology has been successfully tested on a limited scale
onboard Navy intelligence collection aircraft. The technology
provides real-time, automated, hyper-spectral, wide-area search
functionality. By searching for spectral anomalies, it provides
users with automated target nominations without prior detailed
information. This could dramatically cut imagery analyst
workloads, while greatly improving real-time targeting and
threat warning. The committee believes such a capability is
needed to exploit the vast amount of imagery data that the
intelligence community is able to provide.
Therefore, the committee recommends $10.8 million in PE
63232D8, an increase of $3.0 million for advanced development
of hyperspectral technology for automatic target recognition,
and $16.1 million in PE 65867N and $14.1 million in PE 27247F,
an increase of $4.0 million respectively for the services to
procure and test hyper-spectral sensors and exploitation tools.
Improved software production management
The budget request contained no funding for improved
software development and production management. The committee
notes that the Office of the Secretary of Defense recently
acknowledged that Department of Defense software expenditures
had risen to $42 billion annually by 1994, and that 40 to 50
percent of this amount was attributed to software rework and
correction of problems.
The committee also notes that industry has demonstrated the
ability to significantly reduce required rework by more than a
factor of four by implementing an initiative known as best
software practices. It further notes that even a far more
conservative percentage of cost avoidance would result in
annual savings of billions of dollars that could be invested
elsewhere by the Department of Defense.
Another serious problem addressed by this industry
initiative is an increasing shortage of qualified programmers.
Industry has determined that the number of highly qualified
software programmers is declining and that acheiving
significant reductions in software re-work enables more
efficient use of best qualified software programmers, enabling
the focus on new development efforts.
The implementation of best software practices by industry
has proven that more efficient software development offers a
dramatic potential for acquisition cost savings, and the
committee believes that this potential must be pursued by the
Department for defense programs. The Tri-Service Software
Program Managers Network has been established to identify best
industry practices for software development and management and
to convey these best to the services. The committee is
concerned that although the savings possible through use of
industry best practices have been documented and an associated
implementation plan developed by the Tri-Service Software
Program Managers Network, the Department has failed to
implement this plan. While a significant number of industry
segments are aggressively pursuing best software practices to
cut their costs, the annual $42.0 billion cost to the
Department of Defense is so large that even a fraction of
possible savings, if realized, would have a dramatic impact on
force modernization.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to mandate
the use of identified best practices for software development
and management for all acquisition programs and recommends $4.5
million in PE 63XXXN for the Tri Service Software Program
Managers Network.
Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine
The budget request contained $17.7 million in PE 63573N to
continue development and full scale system testing of the
intercooled recuperated (ICR) gas turbine engine.
The committee supports the development of the ICR gas
turbine as the next-generation marine propulsion gas turbine
and potential power plant for surface combatants and other
ships based on the significantly reduced life cycle fuel costs
and improved capabilities that have been demonstrated during
the development program. The engine is being developed in
accordance with cooperative agreements between the United
States and the United Kingdom and the United States and France.
The committee notes that in 1998 the Navy significantly
restructured the ICR program in accordance with program
guidance contained in the statement of managers accompanying
the conference report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-746). The ICR
Essential Program has been structured to meet development
milestones for the United Kingdom and France's common new
generation frigate and to provide industry with a qualified
marine gas turbine for consideration as the prime mover for the
DD-21 next-generation surface combatant. Under the program the
Navy will complete sufficient development testing to
characterize technical attributes and risks, complete the
second 500 hour development test, and identify a pre-production
engine configuration that will then undergo qualification
testing by the United Kingdom and France. During the
qualification test phase of the program, U.S. Navy
participation will include technical review, witnessing tests,
and accepting test results.
The committee recommends the budget request in PE 63573N.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to
the Congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2001
budget request those measures necessary to ensure completion of
the ICR Essential Program.
Joint experimentation program
The budget request contained $41.8 million in PE 63727N for
the Joint Warfighting Experimentation program.
The program funds the field experiments and supporting
simulation to evaluate potential systems and concepts and their
contribution toward achieving the objective of enhanced
effectiveness and dominance of U.S. armed forces in future
military operations. The committee notes that the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff's ``Joint Vision 2010'' and
supporting conceptual doctrine statements by the military
services stress the critical role that technology will play in
achieving new levels of effectiveness across the range of
future military operations. The committee also notes that the
program will initially focus on experiments relative to the
contribution of advanced information technology to joint
warfighting capabilities. The committee supports a coordinated
joint program that will explore and experiment with new
operational concepts, doctrine, organizations, training, and
system technologies to understand the new capabilities needed
to achieve the next century's military requirements.
The committee recommends $49.8 million in PE 63727N, an
increase of $8.0 million for Joint Warfighting Experimentation
program.
Joint non-lethal weapons programs
The budget request included $23.3 million in PE 63851M for
non-lethal weapons.
The committee understands that the XM 303 Under-Barrel
Tactical Payload System (UBTPS) is being examined for use in
internal security and rear area security activities by the
military services, Special Operations Command, and the National
Guard.
Accordingly, the committee considers the continued
development and evaluation of the UBTPS in fiscal year 2000 to
be a matter of Congressional interest. Further, the committee
expects the military services, Special Operations Command, and
the National Guard to consider the XM 303 UBTPS for the purpose
of determining their requirements for non-lethal systems.
Joint tactical combat training system
The budget request contained $26.3 million in PE 24571N for
Consolidated Training Systems Development, including $8.0
million for continued development of the Joint Tactical Combat
Training System (JTCTS).
The JTCTS is a Navy-led, joint Air Force/Navy program for
the development of fixed, transportable, and mobile range
instrumentation for shore-based tactical air crew training and
for deployable, at-sea naval expeditionary force training. The
committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-532) directed the
Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Secretary of
the Air Force, to conduct an assessment of the feasibility and
desirability of a transition strategy from the existing Navy
large area tracking ranges (LATR) and the Air Force's AN/ASQ-34
Kadena Interim Training System (KITS) to the objective JTCTS
capability. The committee expressed the belief that such a
strategy should include potential improvements in the legacy
systems, requirements for interoperability with the JTCTS, and
ultimate replacement of the legacy systems by JTCTS. The
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on
H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-746) directed the Department of Defense
to conduct a technical evaluation to compare the capabilities,
performance, and costs of an integrated LATR/KITS system to
JTCTS.
The committee notes that the report of the Navy's JTCTS
transition strategy assessment, dated February 1999, concluded
that programmatic, technical, and operational use factors
indicate a marginal return on investment for improvements to
existing legacy systems. The assessment concludes that neither
of the legacy systems (LATR or KITS) possesses the capabilities
needed to meet the key operational requirements for JTCTS. The
committee also notes that the Department intends to complete
the technical evaluation required by the statement of managers
accompanying the conference report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-
746) by August 1999.
The committee recommends the budget request for continued
development of JTCTS.
Lightweight 155MM howitzer
The budget request contained $42.7 million in PE 63635M for
Marine Corps ground combat supporting arms systems and included
$23.2 million for the XM 777 lightweight 155mm towed howitzer.
The XM 777 howitzer was developed as the replacement for
the aging and operationally deficient M198 towed howitzer for
the Marine Corps and the Army. The XM 777 will retain the range
of the M198 while reducing the weight from 16,000 pounds to
9,000 pounds. The weight reduction significantly improves
transportability by sea, air, and land platforms while
providing increased rate of fire.
The committee supports this urgently needed replacement and
recommends $46.9 million in PE 63635M, an increase of $4.2
million for the XM 777.
Littoral warfare fast patrol craft
The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for
the Navy's advanced technology demonstration program.
The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research is
evaluating initial results of concept evaluation of a littoral
warfare fast patrol craft including preliminary design of the
ship and fire support weapons module, development of a
communications module, and at-sea demonstration of the concept.
The committee believes that the concept could provide an
enhanced in-shore surveillance, communications, and fire
support capability in support of Navy and Marine littoral
operations, and that the Navy should continue the evaluation
and determine the validity of an operational requirement for
such a capability. The committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees with the
fiscal year 2001 budget request, the program plan, schedule,
and funding for the concept development and evaluation program.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63792N to continue the concept development and evaluation
program for the littoral warfare fast patrol craft.
Location of global positioning systems jammers
The budget request contained $163.1 million in PE 64270N
for development of electronic warfare systems. No funds were
requested to continue development and demonstration of a state-
of-the art precision surveillance and targeting system for
location of global positioning systems jammers (LOCO GPSI).
The Congress provided $3.5 million in fiscal year 1997 and
$2.8 million in fiscal year 1998 to develop and demonstrate a
prototype system for locating and targeting global positioning
system jammers. The committee understands that the laboratory,
field, and initial flight tests of the LOCO GPSI prototype have
demonstrated the ability of the prototype to target such
jammers.
The committee recommends $169.1 million in PE 64270N, an
increase of $6.0 million to continue the development and
evaluation of the LOCO GPSI system. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to assess the operational requirement for
an electronic countermeasures system for precision targeting
global positioning system jammers and the program plan for
development of such systems, and to report the results of the
assessment to the Congressional defense committees with the
submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Marine Corps H-1 helicopter upgrade
The budget request contained $157.7 million in PE 64245N to
continue engineering and manufacturing development for upgrade
of the Marine Corps fleet of light/attack helicopters.
Under the upgrade, the existing fleet of 201 AH-1W attack
and 104 UH-1N utility helicopters will be remanufactured into
180 AH-1Z and 100 UH-1Y helicopters. The program was initiated
in 1995 to provide increased performance, reliability,
maintainability, and commonality at an ``affordable'' cost,
reduce maintenance and spare parts cost and overhead, and
extend the life of the existing Marine light/attack helicopter
fleet until an advanced rotor craft common to all services
would become available around 2020. Known as ``4BN/4BW,'' the
program replaces the current two-bladed rotor system in both
helicopters with a new, identical, four-bladed, all composite
rotor system, a common engine and power train, and a fully
integrated state-of-the-art cockpit.
The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps
has included an increase of $26.6 million for this program as
his number one unfunded priority for aviation research and
development in fiscal year 2000. Consequently, the committee
recommends $184.3 million in PE 64245N, an increase of $26.6
million. The committee is concerned, however, by the continuing
cost growth for a weapons system the Marine Corps regards as
critical to its future warfighting capability and expects the
Secretary of the Navy to review the program, establish a
revised program baseline, and take measures necessary to manage
the program within the revised baseline.
Marine mammal research
The budget request contained $361.1 million in PE 61153N
for the Navy's defense research sciences program.
Of the funds provided in PE 61153N, the committee
recommends $500,000 for continuation of the Navy's cooperative
marine mammal research program.
Multi-function self-aligned gate technology
The budget request contained $69.7 million in PE 35204N for
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and $9.4 million in
35207F for manned reconnaissance systems. No funding was
provided in either program element for the multi-function self-
aligned gate (MSAG) active aperture antenna (AAA) technology.
The Congress has supported this AAA technology for several
years, and the committee is pleased with the successful MSAG
antenna demonstration completed in August 1998. During this
unprecedented demonstration, the MSAG provided wide-band,
duplex communications links simultaneously to a ground vehicle,
an aircraft, and a satellite surrogate.
The committee believes that a single, electronically-
steered antenna array that can provide multiple wide-band
communications links would be a cost-effective solution to
numerous Department of Defense communications requirements.
However, the committee is concerned to note that the Department
has failed to provide even minimal funding for this technology.
The committee understands that the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and
Intelligence) is considering initiation of an advanced concept
technology demonstration of the MSAG technology and that the
Air Force is supportive of testing this antenna technology on
reconnaissance aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 35204N for operational evaluation of the MSAG AAA
on the tactical control station and the Predator UAV. The
committee also recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
35207F for evaluation of the MSAG AAA onboard the RC-135 Rivet
Joint aircraft.
Multipurpose processor
The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 64503N for
the submarine sonar improvement program, including $22.5
million to continue development of the Acoustic Rapid
Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Insertion (A-RCI) program.
The committee notes the significant improvement in sonar
system capabilities that has resulted from the application of
multipurpose processor (MPP) acoustics signal processing
technology to Navy submarine sonar systems. The committee has
strongly supported the Navy's selection of the MPP as the
cornerstone for sonar upgrades for existing submarines in the
A-RCI program. The committee has also supported the development
of advanced MPP signal processing capabilities in the A-RCI
program, in the Navy science and technology base, and in the
integration of those capabilities in submarine, airborne,
surface sonar, and undersea surveillance systems.
The committee recommends the budget request for the
submarine sonar improvement program and continued funding
support for the development of advanced MPP acoustics signal
processing technologies as an integral part of the Navy's sonar
improvement research and development program.
National oceanographic partnership program
The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for
applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technology,
including $10.0 million for Department of the Navy support to
the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
Sec. 282 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) established the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program to promote U.S. national
goals of assuring national security, advancing economic
development, protecting quality of life, and strengthening
science education and communication through improved knowledge
of the ocean and to coordinate and strengthen oceanographic
efforts in support of those goals.
The committee has reviewed the National Ocean Research
Leadership Council's fiscal year 1999 report to the Congress on
the National Oceanographic Partnership Program and notes the
steadily increasing activity in pursuit of the program goals
and increased funding for the program from the participating
federal agencies. The committee notes that the Ocean Research
Advisory Panel believes the program has fostered a culture of
partnership among participating government agencies, academia,
and industry which has resulted in unique new approaches to
ocean research. The committee also notes the panel's finding
that one of the most pressing concerns in oceanography is the
need for integrated ocean observation systems.
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy
is declassifying and will make available for use by the public
and by private institutions and agencies previously classified
acoustical data from the Navy's underwater Sound Surveillance
System (SOSUS) and data on ocean temperature and salinity
levels under the Arctic ice cap. The statement of managers
accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-
736) requested that the Chairman of the National Oceanographic
Research Council conduct an assessment of the value of data
from the Navy's underwater Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) in
public and private ocean research. The committee understands
that the council will consider support for a SOSUS pilot
project to determine the feasibility of providing routine
access to declassified SOSUS data.
The committee recommends $60.3 million in PE 62435N,
including $10.0 million for the National Oceanographic
Partnership Program.
Navy aviation survivability
The budget request contained $7.3 million in PE 63216N for
aviation survivability.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
has conducted an extremely successful Foreign Comparative Test
(FCT) of the K-36D Russian ejector seat and that this seat
demonstrated crew survivable ejection capability which
surpassed that of current U.S. ejection seats. The committee
notes that the Air Force has continued evaluation of the K-36D
and has developed a new version, the K-36/3.5A in order to meet
U.S. requirements and yet provide equivalent capabilities in a
lighter weight version.
While the Air Force is actively pursuing enhanced crew
safety capability offered by the K-36/3.5A, the committee is
concerned that the Navy has not seriously considered this
opportunity to afford Navy and Marine Corps aviators the same
increased safe ejection capability. The Navy has proposed to
enter into a multi-year procurement F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
aircraft that do not offer the same level of crew safety as the
K-36/3.5A. Additionally, the Marine Corps is engaged in re-
manufacture of its fleet of AV-8B Harrier jets to correct
serious safety and sustainability problems.
The committee believes that both of these Navy aircraft
represent the backbone of Navy aviation force projection
capability and should be required to seriously evaluate the
enhanced crew safety offered by the K-36/3.5A ejection seat.
The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy provide
a report to the Congressional defense committees with the
submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request including the
details of that evaluation.
Navy land attack missile program
The budget request contained $101.5 million in PE 63795N
for systems integration and testing, including $21.8 million
for the Navy's land attack missile program.
The committee notes the operational requirement for a land
attack missile system in the Navy's near-term and far-term fire
support systems. The committee continues to support the
development, risk reduction, and analytical activities leading
to a defense acquisition milestone decision for a missile
system program that will satisfy the operational requirements
for a Navy land attack missile system
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736) directed the Secretary
of Defense to ensure the conduct of an analysis of alternatives
(AOA) to support the acquisition of a Navy land attack missile,
and further directed that the Navy should not proceed to a
Milestone I decision until the AOA and other requirements
appropriate to a major acquisition milestone decision have been
satisfied. The committee notes that the analyses and studies to
satisfy this guidance are currently underway. The March 1999
letter report from the Director of Defense Operational Test and
Evaluation, which was submitted in response to the direction
contained in the Appropriations committee report on H.R. 4103
(H. Rept. 105-591), states that the results of the studies will
be examined as part of a 1999 Defense Acquisition Board review
of the land attack missile program and that the Department of
Defense intends to conduct operational testing to verify the
issues on any land attack missile option that is pursued. The
committee expects that these actions should result in the
selection from among the competing alternatives of the most
cost- and operationally effective near-term solution to the
operational requirement.
The committee also notes that the far-term naval surface
fire support program will require an advanced land attack
missile system for the DD-21 land attack destroyer when that
ship joins the fleet in 2009, and that the Navy has yet to
establish a development program for such a missile. The
committee believes that a competitive development program
should be established beginning in fiscal year 2001to ensure
the availability of an advanced land attack missile for the
first DD-21.
The committee recommends $21.8 million in PE 63795N to
continue development and systems integration for the Navy's
near-term land attack missile. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense
committees the program plan and funding requirements for
development of an advanced land attack missile system for the
DD-21 and other naval combatants with the submission of the
fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Navy theater missile defense and fleet defense radar upgrades
The budget request contained $329.8 million in PE 63868C
for the Navy theater wide (NTW) theater ballistic missile
defense (TMD) system and $5.7 million in PE63755N for ship self
defense.
The committee notes the benefits of leveraging the large
investment in the Aegis weapon system as the technical basis
for the development of an effective sea-based theater missile
defense system. The committee understands, however, that the
current SPY-1 radar does not meet TMD mission requirements and
that significant radar upgrades are required to reach the
objective capabilities for the NTW system. At the same time,
the committee recognizes that radar upgrades required by the
TMD mission need to be thoroughly integrated with continuing
radar improvements required for fleet defense to meet aircraft
and cruise missile threats, development of the cooperative
engagement capability (CEC), and continued development of next
generation Navy destroyers and cruisers.
The committee is aware that the Navy has two radar
alternatives under consideration to meet its immediate TMD
requirements, an adjunct X-band radar and a S/C band SPY-1
upgrade. The committee also understands that the Navy is
conducting a competitive development of a multi-function radar/
volume search radar (MFR/VSR) suite for the DD-21 and CVN-77
programs. The committee is concerned that the Navy is
simultaneously conducting three different surface ship radar
development programs and that two major competitors are
participating in all three efforts. All three of these radar
programs support similar area search and tracking requirements
for current and future surface ships, and the committee
believes that all three alternatives should be carefully
evaluated to determine the most cost effective and technically
feasible approach for supporting NTW and fleet defense radar
requirements.
The committee notes that the Navy has unique expertise in
developing radar and command and control capabilities required
for fleet defense, and that these requirements overlap those
derived from the TMD mission. However, the committee believes
that the Navy needs to lay out a clearly defined roadmap of
radar requirements and technology approaches to enable
identification of the best approach for various programs.
The committee also notes that the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization shares TMD development costs for a number of
programs, including the Space Based Laser, Navy Area Defense,
and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Configuration 3 (PAC-3)
programs, while retaining program oversight over the executing
service. The committee believes that this is a sound management
and funding structure for NTW as well.
Therefore, the committee recommends $55.7 million in PE
63755N, an increase of $50.0 million for continued development
of an adjunct X-band radar, a SPY-1 upgrade, and the MFR/VSR
suite to meet fleet defense and TMD requirements. The committee
further directs that the Secretary of the Navy provide the
Congressional defense committees a comprehensive TMD and fleet
defense radar roadmap with submission of the fiscal year 2000
budget request.
NSSN advanced submarine systems technology development and insertion
The budget request contained $241.5 million in PE 64558N
for continued engineering and manufacturing development (EMD)
of the VIRGINIA Class New Attack Submarine (NSSN) and $115.8
million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems
development.
The committee continues to strongly support the development
of advanced submarine technologies for the NSSN, and is pleased
with the manner in which the Navy has adopted and is executing
a strategy for increasing the capabilities of the NSSN
submarine. Incremental insertion of advanced technologies in
the follow-on ships of the class will lead to the production of
a more capable, less expensive nuclear attack submarine.
The committee has reviewed the February 1999 report from
the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) on
the updated technology insertion plan and notes that the
program has been extended through the first seven ships of the
class. The committee notes that, overall, the budget request
contains approximately $292.0 million in EMD and Ship
Construction, Navy funding to support the VIRGINIA Class
technology insertion program. The committee also notes
shortfalls in the advanced submarine technology program that
have been identified by the Chief of Naval Operations.
The committee recommends the following increases for the
NSSN advanced submarine systems technology development and
insertion program that have been recommended by the Navy to
accelerate and enhance critical warfighting capabilities in the
VIRGINIA Class NSSN: $6.5 million in PE 63561N, $18.5 million
in PE 64558N, and $5.0 million in Ship Construction, Navy.
Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition
The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 63232D8Z
for the development and demonstration of automatic target
recognition technology and $34.3 million in PE 63609N for the
Navy's conventional munitions program.
The committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-532)
directed the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and
Technology) to provide to the Congressional defense committees
the Department's overall plan and program for the development
and demonstration of optical correlator technology for
automatic target recognition. The committee has reviewed the
plan and notes that the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering supports the development and demonstration of the
technology as a priority of the ATR technology assessment
program. The committee also notes that additional funding
support to the program has resulted in key technology advances
and increased the potential for near term transition of the
technology and its applications to weapon systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million in PE
63609N to continue the program for development and
demonstration of a miniature, rugged optical correlator for
automatic target recognition and improved aim point selection
for the Navy's Standard Missile.
Optically fed and controlled phased array antenna
The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for
applied research in communications, command and control,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, including $22.2
million for radar technology.
The committee notes the potential for the development of
monolithic circuits that combine photonic, optic, and microwave
technologies in highly integrated, multi-level photonic
modules. The use of such modules could provide increased
bandwidth, advanced beamforming capabilities, and improved
performance in advanced military radar and communication
systems that are lower in cost, smaller in size and weight, and
require less power than those systems that employ current
phased-array radar technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
62232N for applied research in the development and application
of multi-level photonic module technology to optically fed and
controlled phased array radar and communications systems.
Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer
The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for
applied research in communications, command, control,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology,
including $22.2 million for radar technology.
The committee understands that high instantaneous bandwidth
is needed in shipboard radar surveillance systems to achieve
the necessary resolution for theater ballistic missile defense,
ship self-defense, and non-cooperative target identification.
The committee notes that the use of optical wavelength-division
multiplexing (WDM) technology, now being developed in the
commercial sector, may provide the capability for wideband
beamforming that could result in the demonstration of a
wideband electronically-steered active radar antenna with high
instantaneous bandwidth and the resolution necessary for
theater ballistic missile defense and non-cooperative target
identification. Use of optical WDM technology to reduce
hardware complexity would permit reductions in system cost and
achieve performance levels that are needed for ship self
defense in a littoral environment.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62232N to initiate a cooperative program for research,
development, and demonstration of a prototype optically
multiplexed, wideband, radar beam-forming array using optical
WDM technology.
P-3 maritime patrol aircraft combat systems research and development
The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 64221N for
engineering and manufacturing development in support of the P-3
maritime patrol aircraft.
The program provides upgrades to P-3C aircraft systems to
enhance surface and subsurface tracking, classification, and
attack capabilities, specific emitter identification, and
improved radar tracking, and develops the software necessary to
integrate advanced sensors into embedded P-3C Update III
computer systems.
The committee notes that major theater combatant commanders
continue to give high priority to the use of P-3C aircraft for
reconnaissance and surveillance missions in both maritime and
littoral operations. The Navy's recently-published Integrated
Submarine Warfare Roadmap, which responded to direction
contained in the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736), cites
improvements in P-3 system capabilities as either essential or
critical to near-term anti-submarine warfare operational
capabilities. The committee also notes that there is, as yet,
no program for development of a new multi-mission maritime
aircraft. The committee strongly believes that increased
priority must be given to the maintenance of a robust,
continuing research and development program to support
sustainment of existing P-3C aircraft anti-submarine warfare
and anti-surface warfare capabilities and introduction of new
capabilities.
The committee recommends the budget request, and strongly
recommends that the Secretary of the Navy carefully review the
fiscal year 2001 budget request for the P-3 maritime patrol
aircraft program to ensure that it is in accordance with the
program priorities established in the Integrated Submarine
Warfare Roadmap.
Parametric airborne dipping sonar
The budget request contained $58.0 million in PE 63747N for
undersea warfare advanced technology development and $118.7
million in PE 64216N for the multi-mission helicopter upgrade
program. No funds were requested for the parametric airborne
dipping sonar (PADS).
The committee notes that the Block II Upgrade to the LAMPS
Mark III Weapons System will make significant improvements in
both the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare
mission areas. The Airborne Low Frequency Sonar (ALFS) will
provide the principle improvement in the LAMPS Mark III ASW
mission capability.
The committee also notes that, in addition to the ALFS
program, the Navy's advanced technology demonstration of a
prototype PADS has indicated the significant potential of
parametric sonar technology against both mine-like and
submarine targets in littoral waters. The results of the Navy's
recent at-sea test of PADS indicate that the essential goals of
the PADS demonstration have been met and suggest its potential
for mine detection. However, the PADS ASW performance has not
yet been demonstrated against a submarine target. The Secretary
of the Navy's evaluation report, dated January 1999, states
that the PADS technology merits further pursuit and that the
Navy intends to continue demonstrations of parametric sonar
technology using increases provided by the Congress. The
committee believes that demonstrations of the PADS prototype
technology against a submarine target must be completed before
any decision is made to continue with a development program for
PADS.
The committee recommends the budget request in PE 63747N
and PE 64216N and awaits recommendations from the Secretary of
the Navy to continue further demonstrations and development of
PADS.
Phased array weather radar
The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 62111N for
applied research in surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons
technology.
The committee notes ongoing Navy tests of the capability of
the AN/SPY-1 phased array radar for the measurement of detailed
local atmospheric conditions over water and in clear air. The
committee is aware of proposals that have been made for the use
of the SPY-1 radar at the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Agency's (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory
to evaluate the radar's capability for the collection of
weather data and to test the technology for upgrading the WSR-
88D weather radar with phased array radar capabilities. The
committee believes that such an evaluation could result in
advanced radar capabilities for severe weather warning, and
could also result in enhanced capabilities for the SPY-1 radar
for over-land surveillance and missile engagement guidance and
control during littoral operations.
The committee encourages the Navy, NOAA, and the National
Science Foundation (NSF) to enter into a cooperative agreement
for loan of a SPY-1 radar to the National Severe Storms
Laboratory and evaluation of the potential use of the radar
system for weather prediction, observation, and warning.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
62111N, to be used as matching funds to support a joint Navy-
NOAA-NSF evaluation of the SPY-1 radar's capability for the
collection of weather data and the technology for upgrading
weather radar with phased array radar capabilities.
Power electronic building blocks and power node control centers
The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for
surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical
advanced technology, including $18.0 million for development of
advanced shipboard electrical systems.
The committee notes that the budget request supports the
continued development and demonstration of power electronic
building block technology, however, no funds were requested to
continue the development of power node control centers. The
committee continues to believe that power node control centers
offer potential for significant improvements in efficiency and
effectiveness for advanced electrical distribution system fault
detection, switching, reconfiguration, and control of shipboard
electrical power systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63508N to continue the program for development and
demonstration of power node control centers.
Project ``M''
The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for
submarine and surface ship handling, machinery, and engineering
systems, including $2.4 million to complete the development,
demonstration, and transition of advanced vibration control and
quieting technology for naval machinery support structures.
The committee has closely followed the progress of Project
M, a mounting system for active control of noise and vibration
cancellation on ship machinery support systems, from its
inception as a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
advanced submarine technology program to the transition and
continued development of the technology by the Navy. The
results of the program have shown that the active machinery
raft may provide unprecedented quieting for submarines and
other ships. The committee notes the Navy's plan to conduct in-
water tests of the Project M technology installed in a large
scale test vehicle at the Navy's underwater acoustic test range
and believes that these tests must be completed in order to
fully characterize the overall performance of the technology.
The statement of managers which accompanied the conference
report on H.R. 3616 (H.Rept 105-736) requested that the
Secretary of the Navy assess the potential of the application
of the Project M technology in surface ships. The Secretary's
assessment, dated April 1999, concluded that, although Project
M offered potential benefits in low frequency vibration
control, the impact on surface ship design make it unlikely
that such technologies would be used in existing or future
surface combatants. Consequently, the Secretary stated that a
full-scale prototype development and demonstration of Project M
technology should not be pursued. However, the assessment also
stated that these conclusions should not confine or limit
continued science and technology investments in active control
vibration reduction technologies for other applications.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in PE 63508N for completion of the in-water evaluation
of Project M quieting technology in the \1/4\-scale submarine
vehicle and transition of the technology to the Naval Sea
Systems Command.
S-3B surveillance system upgrade program
The budget request contained $2.1 million in PE 64217N for
the weapon system improvement program for the S-3B maritime
patrol aircraft.
The committee notes that the objective of the S-3B
surveillance system upgrade program is the integration of off-
the-shelf radar, electro-optic and infrared sensors, electronic
support measures, and tactical data links to demonstrate an
enhanced stand-off surveillance capability in support of Navy
battle group operations that could be achieved with low risk
and at relatively low cost. For fiscal year 1997, Congress
added funds to demonstrate the APS-137V(V)5 synthetic aperture
radar on the S-3B in phase I of the program. The committee
notes Navy proposals for phase II of the program which would
demonstrate an integrated surveillance system mission package
on the S-3B aircraft. The committee believes that the phase II
program is a logical follow-on to phase I system demonstrations
to be conducted later this year.
The committee recommends $9.1 million in PE 64217N, an
increase of $7.0 million for the S-3B surveillance system
upgrade program.
Ship survivability and personnel protection
The budget request contained $108.3 million in PE 63513N,
including $6.6 million for development and demonstration of
survivability and protection technologies.
The committee notes that requirements for increased mission
capabilities and reduced manning in future naval ships will
place a premium on protection of ships personnel and the
ability to monitor personnel status under all conditions. The
committee has followed closely the Navy's efforts to develop
and introduce to the fleet a computer-based, total ship damage
control information management system that would enable rapid,
coordinated response to wartime and peacetime casualties,
reduce crew manpower requirements, and improve manpower
utilization. The committee notes that the Navy is evaluating a
personal status monitor that could provide the capability for
detecting man overboard incidents. The committee continues to
support the evaluation of commercial off-the-shelf, non-
developmental items (COTS NDI) that could improve operational
safety and combat survivability and have a high potential for
contributing to safety of flight, fire fighting, damage
control, emergency preparedness ashore, and survival at sea.
The committee recommends $112.3 million in PE 63513N, an
increase of $4.0 million for development, demonstration, and
evaluation of ship survivability and protection technologies.
Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates
The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer
technology.
The committee is aware that silicon carbide is a wide band-
gap semiconductor material with unique physical and electrical
properties that will make possible the fabrication of the next-
generation of microelectronic devices. These devices will be
capable of operation in radiation environments and at high
temperatures, high voltages, high power levels, and high
frequencies in the microwave regime. These capabilities will
enable a wide range of applications in military and commercial
systems, such as high voltage/high power systems, advanced
radar, nuclear instruments, satellite communications, and
advanced sensors. The committee supports the progress that has
been made in the development of silicon carbide materials and
encourages partnerships with industry for early
commercialization of the technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62234N for the continued development of silicon carbide
semiconductor materials and to advance high electrical power
control and other applications for next generation military
platforms.
Smart propulsor product model
The budget request included $5.3 million in PE 63563N for
development and validation of design tools and methods for ship
concept studies.
The Congress provided an increase of $3.0 million in fiscal
year 1999 for the smart propulsor product model (SPPM), a joint
Navy/industry effort to develop software design and analysis
tools that bring together design, manufacturing, cost and
capabilities modeling for ship propulsion devices. The
committee notes that successful completion of the development
program for the SPPM should enable the Navy to consider
innovative propulsion concepts for future ships while
considering life-cycle cost, manufacturing techniques, and
their overall impact on ship system performance and cost.
The committee recommends $8.3 million in PE 63563N, an
increase of $3.0 million to continue development of the SPPM.
SSGN conversion from Trident-class SSBN submarines
The budget request contained no funds for conversion of
Trident-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) to a
conventional cruise missile (SSGN) configuration.
The committee believes that sustaining a robust nuclear
deterrent ought to be of the highest priority for future use of
Trident class SSBN's. The committee notes Section 1032 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for 1998 (Public Law 105-85,
111 Stat. 1948), as amended, limits the expenditure of funds
for the retirement of any of the 18 Trident SSBNs and other
strategic nuclear systems unless START II enters into the force
and the Secretary of Defense exercises a waiver to implement
START II.
The committee further notes that the statement of managers
accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-
736) directed the Secretary of Defense to report to the
Congressional defense committees by March 1, 1999 on an
analysis of Trident SSBN conversion to the SSGN configuration.
This analysis is intended to address a range of conversion
issues, including costs and schedule, major problem areas
requiring additional analysis, implications for arms control
treaty compliance, and possible benefits. The committee notes
that the Secretary's report has not been received.
If the decision is made to retire SSBN submarines as a
result of arms control agreements, the committee believes that
the Department of Defense should consider the one time, near
term opportunity Trident SSBN conversion to SSGN presents to
the United States military. As a result, upon such a decision
and the release of the Secretary of Defense's report, the
committee directs the Navy to consider submitting a
reprogramming request to the Congressional defense committees
to reprogram funds required to support concept validation and
cost and operational effectiveness analysis leading to a
defense acquisition milestone decision on conversion of the
Trident SSBN to SSGN conversion. The reprogramming
authorization to initiate concept evaluation and validation for
the SSGN conversion should not alter the nation's policy of
remaining at START I force levels until START II enters into
force, nor shall it detract in any way from the overall U.S.
deterrent posture or policy.
The committee re-emphasizes the importance it places on the
requested report and directs the Secretary to provide it to the
Congressional defense committees at the earliest possible date.
Superconducting waveform generator
The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer
technology, including $9.8 million for radio frequency solid
state device and control components.
The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research demonstrated
notable performance gains through the use of cryogenic
electronics and high temperature superconductivity technology
in analog and digital electronic components. The Congress
provided $1.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to continue the
development of super conducting waveform generator and analog-
to-digital converter technology that could lead to the
demonstration of an advanced ``cryo-radar'' with increased
performance and clutter rejection and reduced size, power, and
weight. The committee has since learned that the program cannot
be executed at the funding level provided.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62234N to continue the program for development of
superconducting waveform generator and analog-to-digital
converter technology, and to fulfill the intent expressed by
the conferees in the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736).
SWATH ship mine counter-measures demonstrator
The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for
Navy advanced technology demonstrations. No funds were
requested for demonstration of a high-speed mine counter-
measures (MCM) ship.
The committee notes that the Navy's existing force of
dedicated mine warfare ships are proven and capable of
sustained mine hunting and clearance operations, but their slow
speed and limited operational radius limits the effectiveness
of their deployment with Navy surface combatant forces. The
committee also notes that Navy studies indicate continued
requirements for a dedicated MCM force for the foreseeable
future.
The committee is aware of proposals that have been made for
evaluation of advanced, high-speed hull designs as MCM ships.
These proposals include the adaptation of existing Navy small
water area, twin hull (SWATH) craft, equipped with air and
surface MCM systems, as a system demonstrator for evaluation in
fleet battle experiments of the effectiveness of such craft in
MCM operations.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to assess the
requirement for a high-speed MCM ship demonstration program and
provide to the Congressional defense committees by October 1,
1999, a report which includes the Secretary's recommendations
regarding the demonstration, a program execution plan, and Navy
funding for the program.
Tactical control system
The budget request contained $69.7 million in PE 35204N for
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and included $24.6
million for the tactical control system (TCS). No funding was
provided for the operation of the UAV systems integration
laboratory (SIL) or to continue its development of the multiple
UAV simulation environment (MUSE).
The committee continues to be supportive of the TCS and
notes that TCS software is the key to interoperability for
future medium-altitude and tactical UAVs and their payloads.
Further, the committee is supportive of the TCS objective to
interface with high-altitude UAVs.
The committee notes that the Naval Surface Warfare Center
program office continues to develop most of the TCS software
and expend most of the TCS developmental funding in-house. The
committee believes that the TCS program could be more
efficiently managed if the TCS developments, including software
engineering and maintenance, were to be outsourced in whole to
the prime system integration contractor. Further, the committee
believes such outsourcing would allow for a smaller and more
efficient government program office. The committee believes
that holding a prime contractor responsible for total system
performance has demonstrated success with many other programs.
Finally, the committee notes that the U.S. Atlantic Command
(USACOM) has been without a TCS capability for its UAV testing,
and that additional funding is required to provide such a
capability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million for procuring a TCS ground station for USACOM. Further,
the committee directs a reallocation of $4.5 million within PE
35204N specifically to realize the program office efficiencies
discussed above and to move software development and
maintenance responsibility to the prime contractor. This
funding is to be reapplied within the TCS program to fund the
SIL MUSE efforts.
Tactical Tomahawk
The budget request contained $147.2 million in PE 24229N
for Tomahawk and Theater Mission Planning Center operational
systems development, including $145.3 million for the Tactical
Tomahawk program.
The committee has supported the Navy's initiation of the
Tactical Tomahawk program. However, the committee report on
H.R. 3116 (H. Rept. 105-532) expressed particular concern about
the Navy's ability to establish a competitive environment for
future Tactical Tomahawk procurement and directed the Secretary
of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees
the Navy's plan for ensuring competitiveness in the production
phase of the program.
The Secretary's letter report, dated September 25, 1998,
noted the Navy's decision to continue with the current Tomahawk
manufacturer for both the Tactical Tomahawk development
contract and the full rate production program that would
commence in fiscal year 2003. The report also asserted that the
cost to the Navy associated with acquisition of a comprehensive
technical data package for the missile and facilitating a
second source would be prohibitive and that the delay in
bringing on a second source would not support the required
schedule for the delivery of missiles to the fleet.
The committee notes that the justification and approval
(J&A) on which the sole-source decision for the Tactical
Tomahawk program was based stated that the engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) contract would require the
contractor to develop and maintain a complete technical data
package to support EMD and future missile production. The
committee also notes that since the approval of the J&A and
award of the EMD contract for Tactical Tomahawk, the Navy has
determined that it does not have the ability to provide a
technical data package to firms that would wish to compete in
related warhead programs because the ``EMD contract does not
include a requirement for a technical data package.''
The committee believes that the Navy's decision not to
acquire a technical data package for the Tactical Tomahawk
denies the ability to establish a second production source for
the missile, should that be required in the future, and the
ability of the Navy to compete any future procurement of the
missile. In view of the operational expenditures of the
Tomahawk missile as a weapon of choice in current operations
and the imminent need to replace those expenditures, the
committee considers such a policy short-sighted.
The committee also notes that the estimated cost of the
Tactical Tomahawk program dictate that any procurement decision
should be made only after a formal defense acquisition program
milestone decision review at an appropriate time in the
development program. The committee believes that such a
milestone decision review should consider measures for
establishing competitiveness in the production phase of the
program.
The committee recommends the budget request of $147.2
million for continuation of the Tomahawk development program.
The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense
(Acquisition and Technology) to review the Tactical Tomahawk
program and the decision not to acquire a technical data
package for the missile. The Secretary shall report to the
Congressional defense committees by December 31, 1999, on
measures that will be taken to insure competition in future
Tactical Tomahawk procurement and related programs.
Trajectory correctable munitions development
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105-261) provided $5.0 million in PE 63635M for the
joint Army-Marine Corps Trajectory Correctable Munitions (TCM)
development.
The committee notes that the various agreements required
for a joint international program have been agreed to by all
parties and are to be signed in the near future. The committee
continues to support TCM development and directs the Secretary
of Defense to release the previously authorized funding to the
Marine Corps promptly after the agreements are signed.
Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers
The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer
technology.
The committee notes that over the last four years the Navy
has engaged in a program to advance the use of ultra-high
thermal conductivity fibers in high-performance, high-density
electronic modules. Success in this area could permit the
expanded use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronic
components in military aircraft and avionics (where the high
thermal output of such components has constrained their use),
and in substantial savings in system procurement costs.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
62234N to continue the development of applications for ultra-
high thermal conductivity fibers technology.
Undersea warfare advanced technology
The budget request contained $34.1 million in PE 62633N for
applied research in undersea warfare weapons technology.
The committee recommends $36.1 million, an increase of $2.0
million to continue the development and application of
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology to Navy
undersea weapons systems.
Unmanned aerial vehicles
The committee notes that the Congress directed the
establishment of the office of Director for Expeditionary
Warfare (N85) within the Chief of Naval Operations as a
provision of Public Law 102-484, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993. This action was taken
to address Congressional concerns about the adequacy of Navy
resources dedicated to expeditionary warfare areas such as
amphibious lift, mine warfare, and naval surface fire support.
The Navy subsequently established responsibility for
requirements generation and resource sponsorship for unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), and assigned the new responsibilities
to the expeditionary warfare directorate based on the vital
role these systems play in reconnaissance and targeting support
to expeditionary operations.
The committee understands that the Navy is considering
transferring responsibility for naval UAVs from N85 to the
office of the Director of Air Warfare (N88). The committee is
concerned that the migration of responsibility for naval UAVs
may lead to decreased emphasis on the vital role these systems
perform in expeditionary operations. The committee urges the
Navy to consult the Congressional defense committees on any
planned transfer of responsibility for naval UAVs and provide
sufficient rationale prior to executing such a transfer.
Upgrading fleet systems
The budget request contained $46.7 million in PE 63582N for
combat systems integration demonstration and validation.
The committee understands that the recently created Systems
Engineer of the Navy (NAVSEA 007) provides a focal point for
interoperability and configuration control with the authority
to direct overall upgrade of obsolete equipment across Navy
systems. The office has developed a methodology for reducing
the logistics costs associated with maintaining legacy
equipment: identifying and analyzing legacy systems in the
fleet, then replacing aging and obsolete equipment with state-
of-the-art, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment. Results
of the program should significantly reduce ownership costs to
the Navy and realize cost reductions estimated to be in the
hundreds of millions of dollars. The committee supports the
initiative and encourages its implementation by the Navy as
soon as possible.
The committee recommends $49.7 million in PE 63582N, an
increase of $3.0 million to support implementation of the COTS
insertion initiative for upgrading fleet systems.
Vacuum electronics
The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in advanced materials, electronics, and
computer technology, including $10.0 million for vacuum
electronics technology.
The committee supports continuation of a robust vacuum
electronics research and development program and expects the
Navy as the Department of Defense (DOD) executive agent for the
program to insure a coordinated vacuum electronics research and
development program among the military services and defense
agencies, and with other federal agencies, that will meet DOD
requirements for advanced vacuum electronics technology.
The committee recommends $10.0 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in vacuum electronics technology. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the
Department's requirements for advanced vacuum electronics
technology and to report the results of that assessment and the
long-term funding plan for the Department's vacuum electronics
technology program to the Congressional defense committees with
the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration
The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N,
including $5.0 million to begin an advanced technology
demonstration of the Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller (VTDP)
Compound Helicopter, and $48.8 million in PE 64212N, including
$34.9 million for development and evaluation of the CH-60S
Fleet Combat Support helicopter.
The committee notes that the request for CH-60S helicopter
development includes completion of a three-phase demonstration
of its suitability for airborne mine countermeasures (MCM)
towing missions. The Navy has placed a high priority on the
development of an organic airborne mine countermeasures
capability and the demonstration of a variant of the CH-60
helicopter for the towed airborne MCM mission that will begin
in fiscal year 1999. As a back-up technology, the Navy plans an
advanced technology demonstration of the VTDP helicopter to
demonstrate and assess the helicopter's towed airborne MCM
capability, other multi-mission capabilities, and life cycle
cost effectiveness. The committee also notes that the Navy
plans to address the requirements, content, schedule, and cost
of the plan for the VTDP advanced technology demonstration.
The committee recommends the budget requests for PE 63792N
and PE 64212N and further recommends that the Navy complete the
assessment of requirements, schedule, and cost of conducting an
ATD for VDTP and provide the assessment and recommendations to
the Congressional defense committees in conjunction with
submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2001.
Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems
The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for
development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and
electrical advanced technology.
The committee has supported the development of technologies
that will lead to lower cost designs for future naval ships.
The Congress provided funds in fiscal year 1999 to accelerate
the development and use of virtual prototyping and a virtual
test bed to demonstrate and evaluate advanced shipboard
electrical power system concepts. The test bed provides the
capability to dynamically test hull, mechanical, and electrical
system designs in an interactive, distributed simulation. The
committee believes that the test bed can be further developed
through the integration of actual hardware and advanced
electrical control device simulations to provide a distributed
hardware-in-the-loop simulation that will permit realistic
evaluations of ship hull, mechanical, and electrical systems
performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63508N to continue the development and application of the
virtual test bed.
Air Force RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $13,077.8 million for Air
Force RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$13,212.7 million, an increase of $134.8 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Air
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the
table and in the classified annex to this report.
Items Of Special Interest
Airborne laser
The budget request contained $308.6 million in PE 63319F
for the airborne laser (ABL) program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105-261) required an independent assessment of the
ABL program, including the need for any additional testing, the
adequacy of criteria for entry into engineering and
manufacturing development, and the adequacy of ABL operational
concepts.
The committee notes that the independent assessment team
(IAT) stated that ``the nation is on the threshold of being
able to acquire a long-sought military HEL [high energy laser]
capability'' and that such a capability would ``represent a
truly revolutionary weapon in the nation's arsenal.'' While
acknowledging that technical uncertainties remain, the IAT also
stated that ``subsystem development and analyses have matured
to the point where the remaining questions relate to system
issues which can only be answered by a complete HEL flying
system, gathering data and demonstrating effectiveness in an
operational environment.''
The committee notes that the ABL program has been
restructured to accommodate a $25.0 million congressional
reduction. The restructured program will increase efforts to
characterize atmospheric turbulence that could degrade ABL
performance, demonstrate the effectiveness of ABL's atmospheric
compensation, and examine both the lethality of the laser and
potential countermeasures. The committee notes that the program
has consistently met its budget, technical, and schedule
milestones, and that the initiatives in the program
restructuring address all relevant congressional concerns. The
committee further notes that the ABL program offers the
potential for significant contributions to advancing laser
technology generally, including a better understanding of laser
lethality, laser optics, acquisition, aiming, pointing,
tracking, and command and control.
The committee recommends $308.6 million, the amount
requested for the airborne laser.
Aircrew laser eye protection
The budget request contained $14.8 million in PE 63231F for
crew systems and personnel protection technology, including
$1.3 million for aircrew laser eye protection.
The committee has consistently supported the Department of
Defense's efforts to enhance aircraft crew member protection
systems. The committee is aware of the ongoing efforts to
develop both laser eye protection technologies and an overall
laser threat analysis system. The committee urges continued
development of these initiatives and encourages them to be
viewed as a high priority.
The committee recommends $19.3 million in PE 63231F, an
increase of $4.5 million to be used for the development of
helmet-mounted sensory and laser protection technologies as
well as the laser threat analysis system.
Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office partnership
The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 63856F for
the Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) partnership
program.
The Air Force/NRO partnership program funds studies and
analyses of opportunities to better integrate the activities of
the two organizations. The committee believes that the
leadership structure of the two organizations is appropriate to
foster such integration, and that each organization should be
highly motivated to leverage the investments of the other as a
means of conserving scarce resources. The committee believes
that the activities funded in this program should be part of
the regular order of business for both the NRO and the Air
Force.
The committee recommends no funding in PE 63856F.
Air Force science and technology funding
The budget request contained $209.5 million for Air Force
6.1 basic research and $507.6 million for 6.2 applied research
for a total Air Force science and technology (S&T) request of
$717.1 million.
The committee notes with concern that the Air Force S&T
budget request reflects a disturbing decline in basic and
applied research investments from the fiscal year 1999
appropriated level of $802.0 million. This reduced amount is
also less than either the Army or Navy S&T request and gives
rise to serious concern for the health of future Air Force
modernization capabilities. The committee is extremely
disappointed that the service with the vision to first employ
such leading edge technologies as stealth, precision guided
weapons, and space-based information systems could sacrifice
the very tools that delivered these powerful leap-ahead
technologies and prioritize instead a series of near-term
upgrades to existing legacy systems. While the committee
recognizes the importance of sustaining the existing capability
inherent in todays weapon systems, it views sacrificing the
research essential to open the door to future modernization
without full acknowledgment at the highest levels of leadership
as irresponsible and unacceptable.
The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has
identified a collection of non-space related S&T programs
totaling $94.0 and included them among the Air Force unfunded
priorities. While the committee understands the extreme
pressures experienced by the services as they attempt to
preserve their most critical modernization programs, the
importance of these omitted S&T programs is difficult to
understand. The committee disagrees with the lower priority
placed on these programs and believes that several fielded
systems development programs offering only incremental
improvements to existing equipment, while necessary, should
still be considered lower in importance to critically needed
S&T investments.
Therefore, the committee recommends the following program
decreases explained in detail elsewhere in this report: $12.1
million in PE 11113F, a decrease of $15.0 million for B-52
squadrons; and $65.1 million in PE 63434F, a decrease of $15.0
million for the national polar-orbiting operational
environmental surveillance system. While the committee has
expressed great concern over the serious decline in overall
RDT&E funding and does not consider RDT&E program decreases
lightly, it does believe that these programs are far lower
priorities than the S&T program reductions proposed by the Air
Force.
In conjunction with the above decreases, the committee
recommends restoration of the following critical non-space S&T
programs:
Automatic target recognition
The budget request contained $65.0 million in PE 62204F for
aerospace sensors, but included no funding for automatic target
recognition (ATR).
The committee notes the importance of accurate target
recognition capability and the high sensitivity to collateral
damage displayed during recent regional conflicts. Technologies
such as ATR should be thoroughly evaluated for potential
improvements to all applicable weapon systems.
The committee recommends $68.6 million in PE 62204F, an
increase of $3.6 million for continued evaluation of ATR
technology.
Crew technology
The budget request contained $51.5 million in PE 62202F for
human effectiveness applied research, but included no funding
for crew technology.
The committee believes that the Air Force should place high
priority on research devoted to crew safety, altitude
protection, and the ability to effectively operate aircraft
during long periods of sustained operations, and that this area
of research should be viewed as a fundamental tenet for the Air
Force.
The committee recommends $62.3 million in PE 62202F, an
increase of $10.8 million for continuation of crew technology
research.
Friction stir welding
The budget request contained $63.3 million in PE 62102F for
materials research, but included no funding for the
continuation of friction stir welding.
The committee notes that the Air Force has been evaluating
a unique materials technology known as friction stir welding.
This program has demonstrated a materials joining approach that
does not require consumables and exhibits the capability to
join dissimilar materials. The committee believes this
technology holds significant potential for a number of
aerospace applications and recommends $66.3 million, an
increase of $3.0 million in PE 62102F for continued evaluation
of friction stir welding.
Hyperspectral imaging
The budget request contained $115.3 million in PE 62601F
for Phillips laboratory exploratory development, but included
no funds for hyperspectral imaging technology.
The committee recommends increases in funding for
hyperspectral imaging technology for Navy and Defense-wide
programs described elsewhere in this report and notes that
hyperspectral imaging and sensing technology is one of the many
science and technology efforts that were listed as unfunded
priorities by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. This
technology offers significant improvements to airborne and
other reconnaissance sensors and targeting data collection
systems by providing enhanced wide-area search and targeting
and threat warning capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.3 million in PE
62601F for hyperspectral imaging technology.
Tactical missile propulsion
The budget request contained $115.3 million in PE 62601F
for Phillips laboratory exploratory development, but included
no funds for tactical missile propulsion or Integrated High
Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT).
The committee notes that continued research in this
technology offers significant improvements and enhanced safety
of operations for air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical missile
programs, as well as improved propulsion technologies for
orbital transfer, space maneuvering, and satellite propulsion
technology offered by the IHPRPT program.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million in PE
62601F to continue research in tactical missile propulsion and
IHPRPT.
Ballistic missile technology
The budget request contained no funding in PE 63311F for
ballistic missile technology (BMT).
The committee understands that the BMT program is
developing and demonstrating technologies that will permit a
conventionally armed ballistic missile to successfully attack
hardened and deeply buried targets that are now immune from
attack by everything except nuclear weapons. The committee
notes this effort should continue in light of the importance of
this potential target set, which includes command and control
bunkers and chemical weapons storage sites. The committee
believes that the next logical step in this effort is a missile
technology demonstration of a new penetrating hard target fuse
and simulated high explosive against a hardened and deeply
buried tunnel. The committee also notes that the program will
demonstrate progress in several enabling technologies,
including global positioning system (GPS) guidance and
navigation and radiation hardened circuit technology and
fabrication techniques.
Therefore, the committee recommends $8.0 million in PE
63311F for continued technology development and demonstration.
B-2 upgrades
The budget request contained $201.8 million in PE 64240F
for B-2 engineering and manufacturing development and $106.9
million in post production support.
The committee notes that the Long Range Air Power
Commission concluded last year that, in order to reach the full
potential of the bomber force, additional investments should be
fully supported. Commission members testified that upgrades to
the B-2 identified by the Air Force would enhance low
observable maintainability, further improve the B-2's
stealthiness, and significantly increase situational awareness
for its aircrews. The committee is concerned that the budget
request does not support an integrated low-observable
maintainability/upgrade effort or other modernization
initiatives recommended last year by the commission and the
committee. The committee believes that continued enhancement of
B-2 capabilities is critical in light of their limited number
and the leverage they provide on the battlefield.
Therefore, the committee recommends $353.8 million in PE
64204F, an increase of $152.0 million for the integration of
Link 16 on the B-2, a new mission display system, and a stealth
enhancement initiative. Link 16 will provide the B-2 with a new
data link terminal, antennas, and aircrew interfaces that will
increase responsiveness, enhance survivability, and enable real
time targeting. The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force identified B-2 Link 16 as a high unfunded
priority for fiscal year 2000. The mission display system would
increase aircrew situational awareness by more effectively
displaying threat and targeting information provided through
Link 16. The stealth enhancement program would reduce the
aircraft's radar cross section.
The committee also recommends $141.9 million for post
production support, an increase of $35.0 million to procure an
inflight planner capable of real time flight planning and
generating the most survivable route to target.
Of the amount authorized for the B-2, the committee directs
that $2.0 million shall be available for a conceptual study of
a next generation bomber described elsewhere in this report.
B-52 squadrons
The budget request contained $32.1 million in PE 11113F for
B-52 bomber fleet support.
The committee notes that the B-52 fleet support program has
increased by $29.6 million from last year's projected level for
fiscal year 2000 in order to accelerate an avionics mid-life
upgrade initiative which will replace aging computers and
inertial navigational systems (INS) with non-developmental
items. This initiative, while justified, was previously planned
to start in fiscal year 2003 and the scheduled completion dates
for both the new computer and the INS are well beyond the
current five year defense program. The committee does not
support the proposed three years of acceleration for the B-52
avionics mid-life upgrade program at the expense of other
higher priorities.
The committee recommends $17.1 million in PE 11113F, a
decrease of $15.0 million for B-52 fleet support.
Combat training ranges
The budget request contained $6.2 million in PE 64735F and
$17.5 million in procurement for combat training range
upgrades. The budget request also contained $339.6 million for
miscellaneous production charges.
The committee notes that aircrews at the Nellis and Tyndall
combat training ranges are unable to train with their primary
air-to-air weapon, the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile
(AMRAAM), because information regarding its simulated
performance must be encrypted for classification reasons before
being transmitted to ground instrumentation sites. The
committee understands that the requirement for an encryption
device, the Advanced Data Oriented Security Module (ADOSM), has
existed for some time but that ADOSM units were not available
to be integrated into the Nellis Air Combat Training System
(NACTS) or the Tyndall Range Expansion (TRE) upgrades.
Since ADOSM is now qualified and in production, the
committee believes it should be incorporated into both the
NACTS and TRE in order to take full advantage of AMRAAM in
exercises conducted at these ranges. Accordingly, the committee
recommends $12.2 million in PE 64735F, an increase of $6.0
million; $19.5 million in combat training ranges, an increase
of $2.0 million; and $340.6 million in miscellaneous production
charges, an increase of $2.0 million for this purpose. The
committee expects these additional funds to be expeditiously
obligated in order to achieve ADOSM operational capability at
the earliest possible date.
Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats
The budget request contained $6.1 million in PE 64706F for
life support systems, but included no funds for commercial
standardized cockpit and crew seats.
Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats are designed
to protect crew members and passengers during aircraft crash
loads up to 16 times the force of gravity. However, older
military transport aircraft, such as the C-130, C-135, C-141,
and C-5, were designed with crew and passenger seats that can
withstand crash loads up to nine times the force of gravity.
The committee understands that a commercial standardized
cockpit and crew seat has been developed for the RC-135, but it
requires safety and functionality improvements for its
application to other military transport aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends $10.1 million, an
increase of $4.0 million to develop safety and functionality
improvements to the RC-135 commercial standardized cockpit and
crew seat for its application as a common seat for other
military transport aircraft.
Common imagery processor
The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 35208F for
the common imagery processor (CIP).
The committee understands that the CIP has been
manufactured with a known design input/output limitation that
precludes it from processing real-time imagery from current and
future digital cameras. The committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense pursued a common government solution to
digital imagery processing without ensuring a capability to
process the high data rates from current and future digital
cameras. Further, the committee is aware that the Naval
Research Laboratory (NRL) has integrated commercial imagery
processing technologies into a system that can process these
high data-rates in real-time. These commercial solutions are
not only less expensive, but provide a viable upgrade path for
future requirements.
The committee notes the partnering relationships now being
fostered between the government contractor and the NRL to
provide a CIP that is more commercially-based and capable of
processing modern digital imagery. The committee strongly
supports this relationship, and it expects the Air Force and
Navy to work more closely together to ensure that modern
digital camera systems can be fully exploited in real-time by
the CIP.
The committee recommends the budget request.
Evolved expendable launch vehicle
The budget request contained $324.8 million in PE 64853F
for the evolved expendable launch vehicle.
The committee notes unjustified growth in funding for the
system program office and recommends $322.8 million, a decrease
of $2.0 million.
Global combat support system
The budget request contained $19.4 million in PE 33141F for
the Global Combat Support System--Air Force (GCSS-AF).
The committee notes that the GCSS-AF program will
modernize, and integrate Air Force and other Department of
Defense legacy combat support information systems into a system
that will be compliant with the Defense Information
Infrastructure common operating environment. The centerpiece of
the GCSS-AF program will be a shared data environment that will
ensure the availability of critical decision making information
required by Air Force operational commanders. GCSS-AF will
emphasize commercial off-the-shelf products and reusable
software to reduce program development costs.
The committee recommends $22.4 million in PE 33141F, an
increase of $3.0 million to accelerate the development of GCSS-
AF.
Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request contained $70.8 million in PE 35205F for
endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), including funding for
Global Hawk and DarkStar air vehicles.
Since the budget request was developed, the Air Force has
terminated the DarkStar aircraft, leaving Global Hawk as the
only endurance UAV program. While some residual funding may
result, termination costs for DarkStar are yet to be
determined. However, the committee understands the Air Force
plans to use any residual funds for Global Hawk testing and
evaluation.
Recently, a Global Hawk test air vehicle crashed,
destroying with it the only integrated reconnaissance sensor
package. The committee notes the importance of resuming the
user evaluation and testing of Global Hawk, and of sustaining
the industrial base until completion of the user evaluation.
The committee recommends $95.8 million in PE 35205F, an
increase of $25.0 million for Global Hawk.
Integrated satellite communications control
The budget request contained $361.3 million in PE 64479F
for Milstar satellite communications, including $12.1 million
for development of the Automated Communications Management
System (ACMS).
The committee is concerned that military satellite
communication (SATCOM) resources continue to be allocated
inefficiently among forward-deployed units. The committee
understands that utilization of a web-based technology which
incorporates the ACMS has the potential to significantly lower
communications costs and promote the efficient utilization of
SATCOM assets. Consequently, the committee believes that
continued development of ACMS software is key to this approach
by enabling the use of common standards that will allow
efficient use of legacy hardware systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends $364.3 million in PE
64479F, an increase of $3.0 million to accelerate ACMS
development.
Joint airborne SIGINT program
The budget request contained $124.6 million in PE 35206F,
including $81.6 million for joint signals intelligence (SIGINT)
avionics family (JSAF).
The committee notes that JSAF funding provides resources
for developing both high and low wave length components of the
future airborne SIGINT collection system, which is expected to
become operational in FY 2007.
The committee recommends $131.6 million in PE 35206F
including $88.6 million for JSAF, an increase of $7.0 million.
Joint air-to-surface standoff missile
The budget request contained $166.4 million in PE 27325F
and $2.0 million in PE 64312N for continued development of the
joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM).
The committee understands that the JASSM program plan
reflects funding for integration of the missile only on the
``threshold'' aircraft (B-52H and F-16) through the end of the
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and that neither the Air
Force nor the Navy has programmed funding for integration of
JASSM on the ``objective'' aircraft (B-2, B-1B, F-16, F-15E, F-
117, and F/A-18E/F). Initial operational capability for JASSM
is scheduled for fiscal year 2003. In view of the services'
recent operational experience that has placed a priority on the
use of precision-guided weapons systems, the committee believes
that additional priority should be given to integrating JASSM
on the objective aircraft.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and
the Secretary of the Navy to report jointly to the
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 2001 budget request regarding the plan and program
for the integration of JASSM on the objective aircraft systems
of each service.
Joint strike fighter
The budget request contained $241.2 million in PE 63800N
and $235.4 million in PE 63800F for Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
development and $160.2 million in PE 27268F for the aircraft
engine component improvement program (CIP).
The committee continues its strong support for the
development of an alternate engine to ensure sustainment of
critical industrial base capabilities, control of engine cost
growth, and reduction of risk to the reliability and
maintainability of the planned fleet of 3,000 JSF aircraft. The
committee is concerned that while the Department now states a
commitment to development of an alternative engine for JSF, the
planned funding levels outlined to support that commitment do
not enable cost-efficient and timely completion of the effort.
Meanwhile, the Department is also conducting other jet
engine development efforts in PE 27268F as part of the aircraft
engine CIP. The committee notes that requested funding for this
level of effort program has increased by $66.6 million, over 40
percent, from the level projected for fiscal year 2000 just
last year. The justification for the requested increase is to
reduce backlog of proposed engineering tasks for currently
fielded engines. While supportive of the CIP, the committee
does not consider the proposed increase to this program to be
of higher priority than development of a new state-of-the-art
alternative engine for JSF. The committee notes that full
development of a flight qualified jet engine also provides
opportunities to migrate proven new technologies to existing
engines.
Therefore, the committee recommends $130.2 million in PE
27268F, a decrease of $30.0 million, and $265.4 million in PE
63800F, an increase of $30.0 million, and directs that this
increase in JSF funding be used only for acceleration of
alternate engine development.
Kinetic energy anti-satellite
The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 63438F for
space control, but included no funding for the kinetic energy
anti-satellite (KE ASAT) system.
The committee believes space control will be increasingly
important to U.S. national security as the threats posed to
U.S. military forces from foreign space assets grow and
satellite surveillance and targeting technology spread. The
committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense is
making progress in both developing a coherent space control
policy and recognizing the importance of space control
capabilities. The committee is concerned, however, that the
failure to resource KE ASAT will limit the range of options
open to the Department to deploy effective space control
systems in the near term. The committee notes that KE ASAT has
been in development for 10 years, and that additional
investment could provide the ability to deploy an effective
ASAT capability in a short period of time.
Therefore, the committee recommends $19.8 million in PE
63438F, an increase of $10.0 million for further development of
KE ASAT integrated command and control system and ground based
hardware-in-the-loop tests.
Microsatellite technology
The committee notes significant progress in preparation for
the XSS-10 flight test of microsatellite technologies. However,
the committee is concerned that this demonstration may be
delayed because the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) is withdrawing from an agreement to
launch the XSS-10 on a space shuttle flight in fiscal year
2000. The committee understands that NASA is now offering a
shuttle flight for XSS-10 in late fiscal year 2001. The
committee believes that such a delay in the flight test will
disrupt the program, defer the development of microsatellite
technology that will benefit both military and civil space
programs, and threaten to waste both NASA and Air Force
investments in this effort. The committee strongly urges NASA
to uphold its commitment to make a shuttle flight available for
the XSS-10 in fiscal year 2000.
Military spaceplane
The budget request contained $76.2 million in PE 63401F for
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funding for the
military spaceplane.
The committee notes: (1) that U.S. military forces are
increasingly reliant on space-based capabilities, (2) that the
U.S. Space Command and the Air Force have identified
requirements that are best met by a military spaceplane and its
associated family of vehicles, and (3) that Air Force Space
Command has drafted a ``requirements to acquisition'' strategy
for a spaceplane. The committee believes that a family of
reusable space vehicles for orbital insertion, space maneuver,
and payload delivery to meet military unique requirements would
substantially enhance military access to space and the ability
to conduct rapid global military operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63401F to continue development of military unique spaceplane
technologies and concepts of operations.
Miniature satellite threat reporting system
The budget request contained $76.2 million in PE 63401F for
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funding for the
miniature satellite threat reporting system (MSTRS).
The MSTRS will allow detection of interference, intrusion,
jamming, and unauthorized use of satellite communications
uplink receivers and determine the source location of the
disruptive transmissions. The committee believes that this
technology is important in light of increasing military and
commercial reliance on satellite communications and the
vulnerability of these satellites. The committee notes that
$5.0 million was appropriated for MSTRS in fiscal year 1999,
but understands that the Secretary of Defense continues to
withhold this funding.
The committee directs the Secretary to release the fiscal
year 1999 funds, and recommends an increase of $2.0 million in
PE 63401F to continue preparation of MSTRS for orbital testing.
Miniaturized munitions capability
The budget request contained $8.9 million in PE 64602F for
Air Force Armament Development, but included no specific
funding for Miniaturized Munitions Capability (MMC).
The committee is aware that the Air Force is currently
conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to determine which
emerging technologies can be harnessed to yield the best MMC
weapon and notes that the Navy has recently joined the
development effort. At least two emerging MMC technologies
offer considerable promise for addressing future fixed and
mobile targeting capability. The Small Smart Bombs (SSB)
program, utilizes a small diameter, GPS/INS-guided munition to
attack fixed targets with increased accuracy, enhanced
effectiveness, and reduced collateral damage. The Low Cost
Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS) provides an alternative
approach by combining a laser radar seeker, shoot down warhead,
onboard guidance and navigation system, and miniature turbojet,
all packaged as an autonomous flying munition for use against
relocatable targets.
The current AoA effort, which prioritizes MMC capability
for all types of strike aircraft, is anticipated to lead to a
program start in fiscal year 2002 and an initial operating
capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2007. The committee is
concerned that such a schedule does not adequately satisfy
potential warfighting requirements and urges a concerted effort
to accelerate this concept.
Therefore, the committee recommends $46.9 million in PE
64602F, an increase of $38.0 million, to accelerate development
of the MMC with particular attention given to the Small Smart
Bomb and Low Cost Autonomous Attack System initiatives.
Furthermore, the committee directs both the Secretary of the
Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a
comprehensive joint study regarding the potential acceleration
of MMC IOC, and to report the results of the study to the
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 2001 budget request. The report shall include total
estimated costs including integration and test funding
requirements associated with acceleration, an assessment of the
technical feasibility of such acceleration, and an assessment
of the anticipated warfighting applicability of such
technology.
National polar-orbiting operational environmental surveillance system
The budget request contained $80.1 million in PE 63434F for
the national polar-orbiting operational environmental
surveillance system (NPOESS).
The NPOESS program is developing the next generation
weather satellite to meet the meteorological needs of both the
military and civil communities. The committee supports the
structure of the NPOESS program, with cost and program
management authority shared between the Air Force, the Commerce
Department, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. The committee notes, however, that the current
generation of weather satellites, developed in the Defense
Meteorological Satellite program (DMSP), will continue to be
launched through fiscal year 2005, and the first launch of
NPOESS is not scheduled until fiscal year 2008.
The committee recommends $65.1 million in PE 63434F, a
decrease of $15.0 million to bring the pace of development in
more appropriate alignment with the fiscal year 2008 first
launch date.
Precision location and identification (PLAID) technology
The budget request contained $90.3 million in PE 64270F for
electronic warfare development, but included no funding for the
PLAID technology program.
The PLAID technology program will enhance aircrew
situational awareness by providing precise, on-board location
and specific identification of threat radars. The improved
situational awareness resulting from this technology will allow
combat pilots to effectively avoid radar-guided surface-to-air
missiles. While the PLAID technology may be applied to improve
the radar warning receivers of most present day fighter
aircraft and has been identified as critical technology for the
joint strike fighter, its present development is focused on the
ALR-69 radar warning receiver.
To continue PLAID technology development, the committee
recommends $104.0 million in PE 64270F, an increase of $13.7
million for the ALR-69 radar warning receiver.
Satellite control network
The budget request contained $61.9 million in PE 35110F for
the satellite control network.
The satellite control network is a global system of control
centers, remote tracking stations, and communications required
to control satellites in orbit. The committee understands that
telemetry and commanding data rates need to be improved and
supports the modernization of the current inefficient and
manpower-intensive system. The committee believes that
commercially available technologies offer the Air Force
opportunities to leverage its own research and development
effort and to explore outsourcing alternatives.
The committee recommends the requested amount for PE 35110F
and directs that, of the funds authorized, $2.5 million shall
be available for the examination and testing of commercial
technologies that have the potential to meet Air Force
satellite control requirements.
Simulation based forecasting decision support system (SBFDSS)
The budget request contained $22.4 million in PE 78611F for
support systems development.
The committee is concerned with Air Force equipment
maintenance backlog levels as well as the service's processing
and accounting capabilities for addressing this problem. The
committee notes a particular service inability to accurately
forecast serviceable spare engines over a relatively short
period of time (e.g., 6 to 12 months), and recognizes the need
to implement a system of spare parts support for depot-level
engine repair in conjunction with manpower, shop flow time, and
equipment availability requirements. The committee understands
that without the proper accounting for these constraints,
forecasts of serviceable spare engines will remain insufficient
and therefore urges the Air Force to take appropriate measures.
The committee recommends $25.4 million in PE 78611F, an
increase of $3.0 million to provide for the existing standard
maintenance information system initiatives and to pursue the
development and implementation of the Simulation Based
Forecasting Decision Support System (SBFDSS).
Space-based infrared system-high
The budget request contained $328.7 million in PE 64441F
for the space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS High).
The committee notes that the budget request for SBIRS High
reflects a reduction of $235.5 million dollars when compared to
the projections in the fiscal year 1999 budget request. The Air
Force also delayed the first launch of SBIRS High from fiscal
year 2002 to fiscal year 2004, and justified this delay in part
because deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD), which
SBIRS High will support, was shifted from fiscal year 2003 to
fiscal year 2005. Also referenced was the fact that the Defense
Satellite Program (DSP) satellites, which SBIRS High will
replace, are lasting longer than planned. This delay will
increase SBIRS High program costs by $500 million to $1 billion
in the outyears.
Further, although the NMD deployment date now proposed by
the Administration is two years later than last year, the
committee understands that the deployment date could be
accelerated if the NMD test program proceeds well. SBIRS High
will also support theater missile defenses, particularly in
meeting the growing threat posed by longer range missiles,
against which the United States has only very limited defensive
capabilities. Finally, with first launch in fiscal year 2004,
the full constellation of SBIRS High would not be available to
support a 2005 NMD deployment. The committee strongly supports
the SBIRS High mission and concludes that the restructuring and
delay of this program is unjustified.
The committee further notes that the Secretary of the Air
Force concedes that the requested funding for SBIRS High falls
short by $92.0 million of supporting the planned first launch
in fiscal year 2004, and that the Adminstration has not come
forward with an amended budget request to correct this
deficiency.
The committee also strongly objects to the manner in which
the Air Force implemented a work slowdown in anticipation of
approval of its proposed fiscal year 2000 program reduction.
The committee was not informed of this decision until after the
contractor had been ordered to restructure the program spending
rates to accommodate the proposed schedule change. This
procedure precluded any realistic opportunity for congressional
review of the Air Force decision and preempted congressional
oversight prerogatives. The committee recognizes that restoring
SBIRS High to a first launch date of fiscal year 2002 is now
impossible, and to restore the date to fiscal year 2003 would
require approximately $400 million in additional funding in
fiscal year 2000. The committee strongly objects to these
management failures by the Air Force and the Department of
Defense, especially concerning a high priority program such as
SBIRS High.
The committee believes that, because of the delay in the
program and the substantial cost growth that results, the
Department will have the opportunity to examine competitive
alternatives that may be available to achieve comparable or
superior capabilities at comparable or lower costs. Therefore,
of the funds authorized for SBIRS High, the committee directs
that $10.0 million may be used only for airborne and space
experiments of a sensor technology described in the classified
annex.
To sustain the SBIRS High program in the most effective
manner and assure that it is accorded a high priority in the
future, the committee recommends $328.7 million for SBIRS High.
The committee believes that this increase will maintain the
currently planned SBIRS High schedule. The committee recommends
that the SBIRS High funding be allocated as follows: $168.7
million in a new SBIRS High program element in the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization, 64XXXC, and $160.0 million in PE
64441F. The committee believes that an alternate management and
funding structure in which BMDO provides management oversight,
the Air Force serves as executive agent, and BMDO and the Air
Force share funding responsibility, would provide the most
thorough assessments of SBIRS High importance in the future.
Space-based infrared system-low
The budget request contained $151.4 million in PE 63441F
and $77.7 million in PE 64442F for the space based infrared
system-low (SBIRS Low).
The committee notes that the Air Force substantially
restructured the SBIRS Low program, terminating two planned
demonstration projects and delaying the first launch of SBIRS
Low from 2004 to 2006. The Air Force argues that the
cancellations were justified because much had been learned from
the effort to develop the demonstrators, that proof of
principle had already been established in earlier experiments,
and that schedule delays and cost growth in the demonstration
projects had increased program risk and cost.
The committee believes that deployment of SBIRS Low is
critical to meeting the growing long range ballistic missile
threats, and that the delay is very damaging to the U.S. effort
to field capable systems in response to these threats in a
timely manner. The committee is also informed that the Navy
Theater Wide (NTW) missile defense system will rely on SBIRS
Low for discrimination and external cueing. The SBIRS Low delay
could seriously degrade the capabilities of the currently
planned interim NTW system known as Block I and could slow
progress toward the NTW objective system.
The committee strongly objects to the manner in which the
Air Force carried out the SBIRS Low program restructuring. The
Air Force informed the Congressional defense committees the day
prior to notifying the contractors of the cancellation of the
demonstration projects, effectively precluding review of an
important decision in a program of high congressional interest.
Further, the committee believes that the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) was not adequately consulted
concerning the decision. To ensure that SBIRS Low is accorded
the high priority the committee believes is warranted by wider
military requirements and to ensure that other service and DOD
equities in the program are protected, the committee recommends
$110.0 million in a new BMDO program element, 63XXXC, $41.4
million in PE 63441F, and $77.7 million in PE 64442F for SBIRS
Low. The committee believes that an arrangement, in which BMDO
provides management oversight, the Air Force serves as
executive agent, and BMDO and the Air Force share funding
responsibility, provides the best chance of success in the
future.
Space launch and spacelift ranges
The budget request contained $43.2 million in PE 35182F for
research and development for the spacelift range system, $83.4
million for spacelift range procurement, and $223.0 million for
operations and maintenance of the eastern and western launch
ranges.
The committee believes that reliable access to space is
both vital to U.S. national security and, increasingly, the
economic well being of the nation. Thus, the committee is
concerned that the nation's space launch infrastructure appears
to be in deep disarray. The committee believes that a series of
space launch failures, the lack of efficient operation and
modernization of the spacelift ranges by the Air Force, and
setbacks in the development of the next generation of U.S.
launch vehicles could jeopardize this access.
The committee notes that the launch industry has suffered
six catastrophic launch failures since August 1998, including
three consecutive failures of the Titan IV launch vehicle and
failure of the first two launches of the Delta III launch
vehicle. These have resulted in the loss of commercial and
important national security payloads worth in excess of $2.0
billion.
The committee understands that to support future launch
requirements, the Air Force is funding the development of two
variants of the evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV), with
the intent of purchasing commercial launch services from two
launch vendors starting in 2003. However, the Delta III is a
technical stepping stone to one of the EELV variants. The other
is based on Russian engine technologies. To date, the
contractor has been unable to acquire the necessary licenses to
allow for co-production of the engine in the United States and
Russia. The long delay in the licensing process has left the
ability of the contractor to meet launch schedule requirements
in serious doubt.
The committee believes that the spacelift ranges at Cape
Canaveral, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
are in equal disarray. The committee notes that commercial
space launches now far outnumber military launches and that
commercial launch demand is expected to continue to grow. The
Air Force has done an inadequate job of modernizing the ranges,
funding for operations and modernization has been insufficient,
and range equipment is aging. As a result, the ranges are
unable to meet commercial demands for greater range
efficiencies. At the same time, the rationale for continued Air
Force funding for the operation, management, and modernization
of the ranges is unclear in light of the fact that by 2003,
when the Air Force expects to contract with commercial vendors
for launch services, the only major operational users of the
ranges will be commercial launch vendors. The committee notes
that continued Air Force funding and management of the ranges
would constitute a substantial subsidy to the commercial launch
industry, while extending control by an organization that has
managed and funded range operations and modernization
inadequately to meet commercial and national security needs.
The committee is aware that the Secretary of the Air Force
has directed a broad area review of space launch to analyze the
causes of recent launch failures, recommend changes in
practices, procedures and operations that might prevent such
failures, and assure continued access to space for the
Department of Defense. The committee is also aware of ongoing
efforts to determine appropriate steps pertaining to range
modernization and operations. The committee believes that these
analyses must result in alternative funding, management,
operations, and modernization arrangements that will result in
a more efficient and effective launch infrastructure.
Consistent with this perspective, the committee recommends
$46.2 million in PE 35182F, an increase of $3.0 million for
feasibility studies, planning, and design of a universal space
port at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
The committee also directs the Department to include a
separate budget line for initial spares for spacelift range
procurement in its fiscal year 2001 budget request, consistent
with the discussion elsewhere in this report regarding the Air
Force's proposed implementation of the Reengineered Supply
Support Process.
Spacetrack
The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 35910F for
space tracking capabilities.
The committee notes that the budget request for this
program is nearly double the amount forecasted in the fiscal
year 1999 budget plan. The committee recognizes the importance
of further development of the ground-based electro-optical deep
space surveillance (GEODSS) system now planned in fiscal year
2000. However, the committee notes that other planned projects
can be more moderately paced without impacting the
effectiveness of the spacetrack effort.
The committee recommends $42.5 million in PE 35910F, a
decrease of $12.3 million.
Synthetic theater operations research model
The budget request contained $19.3 million in PE 27601F for
modeling and simulation, including $2.5 million for the
synthetic theater operations research model (STORM).
The committee notes that the STORM model is the only Air
Force campaign analysis program directed for use by the defense
modeling and simulation office common technical framework. The
program is currently underfunded, resulting in limitations to
planned utilization by Air Force and other service units during
joint exercises.
The committee recommends $21.8 million in PE 27601F, an
increase of $2.5 million, including $5.0 million for STORM
simulation efforts.
Defense Agencies RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $ 8,887.2 million for Defense
Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$9,556.3 million, an increase of $669.1 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000
Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are
discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced concept technology demonstrations
The budget request contained $118.0 million in PE 63750D8Z
for advanced concept technology demonstrations (ACTD).
The committee notes that while the budget request proposes
to once again reduce the overall Department of Defense research
and development budget, funding for ACTDs is proposed to
increase by almost $30.0 million.
To maintain fiscal year 1999 funding, the committee
recommends $88.6 million in PE 63750D8Z for ACTDs, a decrease
of $29.4 million, to hold ACTDs to fiscal year 1999 levels.
Advanced moving target indicator radar
The committee has received the results of a Congressionally
mandated study on moving target indicator (MTI) radar
developments. This study indicates that MTI radar technology,
supported by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and
commercial investments, is rapidly and decisively eclipsing
that of U.S. government-funded efforts such as the U-2's
advanced synthetic aperture radar system improvement program.
These advances promise to provide vastly improved, multi-mode
radars at greatly reduced costs. The committee believes this
new-generation MTI technology should be pursued as quickly as
possible.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to pursue
modular, scaleable MTI/SAR radars that have the ability to
identify and image moving targets. This technology should be
included in the Joint Surveillance, Targeting and
Reconnaissance System radar technology improvement program with
application for platforms such as the U-2 and Global Hawk.
Aeronautical test facilities
In 1995, the President's National Science and Technology
Council issued a report, ``Goals for a National Partnership in
Aeronautics Research and Technology,'' which indicated that,
``newer European wind tunnels focused on aircraft development
testing are generally superior to comparable U.S. facilities in
overall capability'' and that, as a consequence, there has been
increasing utilization of European facilities for U.S.
commercial and military aircraft development. In early 1998,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
the Department of Defense (DOD) established a National Wind
Tunnel Alliance and an Air Breathing Propulsion Test Facilities
Alliance (under the auspices of the Aeronautics and
Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB)), to identify, study,
and implement measures to strengthen the national
infrastructure of aerodynamic and air breathing propulsion test
facilities that support NASA and DOD missions and the domestic
aeronautics industry.
The committee believes that the United States needs to
retain world leadership in aeronautics. To do so means that the
United States must optimize the utilization and care of its
existing aerospace ground test resources among the Department,
NASA, and industry in such a way that properly balances the
support of the nation's research and development programs with
an efficient and effective aeronautical test facility
infrastructure. The committee believes that sufficient
resources must be collectively invested to support existing
capabilities, productivity enhancements, and a robust test
technology program.
The committee notes that a draft interagency agreement
between the Department and NASA is under consideration which
would establish a National Aeronautical Test Alliance and an
integrated national strategy for management of U.S.
aeronautical test facilities. The committee believes that the
Department and NASA should establish such a mechanism for the
strategic management of government-owned aerodynamic,
aerothermodynamic, and aeropropulsion facilities in the United
States that would consider military, civilian, and commercial
aerospace interests in making decisions and recommendations
affecting such facilities. The committee also believes that
this mechanism could be used to manage from a national
perspective the investment of test infrastructure and
technology funding for core national facilities and associated
computational capabilities, including the maintenance and
modernization of key commercial aeronautical test facilities.
The committee believes further that it is desirable that
industrial organizations participate with federal agencies in
considering such investments.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Director, NASA, to report to the
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 2001 budget request the status of the interagency
agreement for establishing a National Aeronautical Test
Alliance and plans for its implementation. The committee
recommends that among the first priorities for the Alliance
should be the development of a report which, building upon the
1997 DOD Core Aeronautical Test Facilities assessment, outlines
national requirements for aeronautical testing capabilities.
The committee expects that from such a report would come
funding recommendations for support and modernization of U.S.
aeronautical test facilities in the fiscal year 2002 budget
requests for the Department and for NASA.
Airborne common sensor
The budget request contained $109.5 million for tactical
cryptologic activities in PE 35885G, including $14.7 million
for the Army's aerial common sensor (ACS).
The committee notes that it has received insufficient
information on the specific plan, concept of operation, and
programmatics for the ACS. Further, the Army has not yet
decided on the aircraft it will use for ACS. Since this
decision will directly affect the costs of procurement, sensors
and their integration, and operations and maintenance, the
committee cannot determine the overall value of the program.
Therefore, the committee recommends $106.8 million in PE
35885G, a decrease of $2.7 million for ACS. However, the
committee directs that no funds provided for ACS are to be
obligated or expended until 30 days after the Congressional
defense and intelligence committees have been provided a report
that includes the following:
(1) The specific aircraft selected for the ACS;
(2) The specific ACS concept of operations and program
plan. The program plan must include the projected funding over
the five year defense plan and expected total cost;
(3) Identification of the generic sensor suites and
development/acquisition plan to provide these sensors; and
(4) Certification from the Director, National Security
Agency, that ACS conforms to the requirements of the 2010
Unified Cryptologic Architecture.
Ballistic missile defense
The budget request contained $3.3 billion for the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).
The committee notes that the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP) includes substantial funding increases over what was
planned last year for BMDO. However, the committee also notes
that the military has no effective defenses to current and
rapidly emerging missile threats. The committee believes that
ballistic missile defense (BMD) is a critical mission area
which continues to suffer from inadequate funds. The committee
urges the Department of Defense to allocate more funds for
ballistic missile defense in subsequent budget submissions to
ensure that critically needed missile defense development and
acquisition programs can be completed as expeditiously as
possible.
To address this shortfall in the near term, the Congress
appropriated an additional $1.0 billion in H.R. 4328, the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-277), for BMD research
and development. The committee notes that the President has
sought to divert $230.0 million of these funds to implement the
Wye River Middle East peace accord. While the committee
recognizes the importance of this accord, it opposes such a
diversion and continues to support the use of the funds for BMD
research and development.
The committee recommends $3.7 billion for BMDO, an increase
of $417.2 million.
Advanced technology development
The budget request contained $173.7 million in PE 63173C
for ballistic missile defense advanced technology development.
The committee notes that funding for advanced ballistic
missile technology has been in steady decline since fiscal year
1992. A robust advanced technology effort is important to meet
future threats both by providing the technical basis for next
generation systems as well as technologies to improve the
capabilities of systems now under development. The committee
notes that the technology development budget requested is far
short of the goal of 10 to 12 percent of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) budget set by BMDO director.
The committee understands that BMDO has identified funding
shortfalls in exoatmospheric interceptor technology (EIT)
development. The EIT effort is focused on integration of active
and passive sensors to provide greater interceptor accuracy and
reliability, optics, propulsion, advanced focal plane arrays,
and other risk mitigation activities, and is key to greater
capability in the national missile defense system, the Navy
theater wide system, and the theater high altitude area defense
(THAAD) system. The committee further notes that BMDO has
identified near term technology infusion programs that show the
promise of reducing the cost of TMD systems now under
development.
To improve the technology base for current and future BMD
systems, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million
in PE 63173C for EIT and near term technology infusion
development efforts.
Applied research
The budget request contained $65.3 million in PE 62173C for
ballistic missile defense applied research.
The committee remains concerned that funding for innovative
ballistic missile technology projects is insufficient to
support Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) future
needs. Funding for innovative science and technology (IS&T,
project 1651) has declined from $52.8 million appropriated in
fiscal year 1998 to $7.9 million requested in fiscal year 2000.
The committee understands that BMDO has identified a number of
high priority technologies for which no funding was available
because of the constrained IS&T budget. These include high
performance, lightweight, affordable optical correlators; high
data rate signal processing using conventional and neural
networks; novel focal plane array technologies; coherent laser
radar miniaturization; and miniature interceptors with
innovative guidance and control enhancements. The committee
believes that future BMD technologies must be more adequately
funded if BMD systems are to meet future threats.
The committee also understands that BMDO has identified
wideband gap electronic materials for high speed and high
temperature device operation as a high priority that is
insufficiently funded. The committee notes that significant
progress has been made in the development of these materials
and believes that additional research offers the opportunity
for further progress.
The committee also believes that innovative science and
technology is an area in which cooperation with the national
security laboratories of the Department of Energy may be
fruitful for both BMDO and the Department of Energy. The
committee encourages the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to
pursue opportunities for such cooperation and the merits of a
jointly funded innovative science and technology program.
Therefore, the committee recommends $95.3 million in PE
62173C for innovative science and technology efforts, project
1651, an increase of $20.0 million. The committee also
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to be available for the
continuation of wide-band gap materials research.
The committee recommends a total of $95.3 million in PE
62173C, an increase of $30.0 million.
Atmospheric interceptor technology
The budget request contained $173.7 million in PE 63173C
for ballistic missile defense technologies. Of this amount,
$21.1 million was requested in project 1281 for the atmospheric
interceptor technology (AIT) program.
The AIT program develops advanced interceptor technologies
to support the theater high-altitude area defense, Navy theater
wide, and Patriot advanced capability-3 configuration 3 (PAC-3)
missile defense systems. The committee understands that
additional funding would support a more robust technology
effort that could include a continued design of a composite
shroud, ground testing of a full scale divert and attitude
control system, ground testing of an advanced low cost two-
color infrared seeker, and completion of the development of a
master frequency generator (MFG) for PAC-3. The committee
believes that the MFG will contribute significantly to the
effort to control PAC-3 missile costs.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63173C for project 1281 to complete the development and
integration of the MFG and other AIT projects that show promise
of improving the performance of theater missile defense
systems.
Ballistic missile defense test targets
The committee recognizes the rapidly emerging threat posed
by the proliferation of more sophisticated ballistic missile
systems and their associated technologies. The committee also
recognizes the need to flight test ballistic missile defense
systems against affordable, threat-representative targets.
Therefore, the committee directs that the development and
procurement of ballistic missile targets be managed by the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), Department of
Defense's Reliance Lead for ballistic missile targets. As such,
the committee notes that BMDO shall be responsible for
centrally managing and budgeting the full spectrum of ballistic
missile targets, from low-fidelity targets used in training to
high fidelity, threat-representative targets used to verify
system performance during operational test and evaluation.
International cooperative programs
The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 63875C for
international cooperative ballistic missile defense programs.
The committee notes with concern that no funding for the
Russian American Observational Satellites (RAMOS) program was
requested. RAMOS is a joint Russian-American project to observe
various phenomena from multiple platforms with technologies
relevant to early warning and ballistic missile defense
applications.
The committee believes that joint missile defense projects
are essential to provide Russia with a better understanding of
U.S. ballistic missile defense efforts. In light of legislation
passed by the House and Senate mandating the deployment of a
national missile defense, the committee believes that
cooperative missile defense programs with Russia would be an
important confidence building measure that could enhance early
warning and shared mutual protection benefits for both sides.
Therefore, the committee recommends $61.7 million in PE
63875C, an increase of $25.0 million for RAMOS.
Low cost launch technology
The budget request contained no funding in PE 63401F or PE
63173C for low cost launch technology.
The committee is aware of a number of technologies and
concepts that offer the potential to reduce launch costs
dramatically. One of these, Scorpius, utilizes simplified
launch processes and technologies to achieve streamlined, low
cost launch. The committee believes that continued research in
this area is important to the long term viability of the U.S.
launch industry. The committee is also aware that the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) needs a liquid fueled
target vehicle to mimic the characteristics of liquid fueled
threat missiles during theater ballistic missile defense
testing.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in PE 63401F and an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63173C for low cost launch technologies, including Scorpius.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the
suitability of such launch vehicles to meet BMDO requirements
for a liquid surrogate target.
Medium extended air defense system
The budget request contained $48.6 million in PE 63869C for
the medium extended air defense system (MEADS).
The committee notes the restructuring of the MEADS program
to leverage technology developments in other programs,
including PAC-3 and THAAD. This restructuring addresses two of
the committee's concerns related to the MEADS program as it was
configured in the past. First, it includes a three year
commitment by the Department to include funding for the MEADS
program. The committee has been critical of the Department's
failure to identify outyear funds for MEADS, and believes that
such a commitment is a necessary first step toward a serious
program. Second, the approach adopted by the Department holds
the promise of reducing the overall cost of the MEADS program
by leveraging current technology investments. The General
Accounting Office, in its recent review of the program,
indicated a probable total program cost of $12 to 14 billion, a
figure not supportable by the already constrained Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) budget.
The committee understands that the MEADS program, as now
planned, envisions the development of prototype hardware to be
tested in fiscal year 2003, using the PAC-3 missile, and
modifications of THAAD battle management software and the PAC-3
launcher. According to program officials, the development of a
360 degree, mobile radar remains a significant technical
challenge. The committee notes that several U.S. weapon systems
are currently developing electronically steered radars. The
committee encourages the Department to explore means of
adapting such radars for use with MEADS, or alternatively, to
examine a system architecture that would rely on a set of
netted missile defense sensors rather than a system specific
radar.
The committee recommends the budget request.
National missile defense
The budget request contained $836.6 million in PE 63871C
for national missile defense (NMD).
The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense
has added outyear funding to the NMD program to support
deployment. However, the committee is concerned that the
Administration refuses to commit to such a deployment and notes
that both the House of Representatives and Senate have passed
legislation establishing NMD deployment as national policy. The
committee believes that such a commitment is important to
provide the ability to effectively focus the funds identified
in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for completion of
development and deployment of an effective NMD capability.
The committee understands that the NMD program still
entails schedule risk and is aware that past target vehicle
failures have caused a number of significant delays in the NMD
and other ballistic missile defense programs. The committee
notes that the NMD program is supported by only one target
launch facility and believes that operation of a second launch
facility and contemporaneous preparation of two target launch
vehicles is a reasonable and appropriate approach to avoiding
costly delays that result from target vehicle failures. The
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63871C
for this purpose.
The committee notes that the NMD lead system integrator
(LSI) is contractually obligated to conduct a competitive bid
process for the radars that will support an NMD system capable
of defeating a larger, more sophisticated ballistic missile
attack than the initially deployed system. The committee
understands that the LSI is reviewing the radar industrial base
and cost and schedule implications to determine whether such a
competition is necessary. The committee believes that
competition frequently can provide the military better
technology at lower cost and that the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) must assure that the LSI follows
appropriate competitive procedures prior to the award of the
NMD radar contract.
Consistent with a request from BMDO, the committee also
approves a transfer of $15.7 million in 63871C to military
construction for the purpose of supporting early NMD
deployment.
The committee recommends $835.9 million in PE 63871C for
continued NMD development.
Navy area defense
The budget request included $268.4 million in PE 64867C for
the Navy area defense theater missile defense system and $55.0
million for Navy area defense procurement.
The committee understands that the combined technical
complexities of upgrading the Aegis weapon system (AWS)
computers, integrating multiple platforms through the
cooperative engagement capability (CEC), and developing the
Standard Missile-2 Block IVA (SM-2 IVA) have led to schedule
delays and cost increases in the Navy area defense program. The
Navy now indicates that the first unit equipped has been
delayed from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2003, and that an
additional $537.0 million over five years will be needed to
keep the program on this delayed schedule.
The committee recognizes that the Navy area defense program
is the Navy's primary capability to defend against rapidly
evolving theater ballistic missile threats and that further
delay to the program will increase risks for deployed U.S.
military personnel. At the same time, the committee is
concerned about the dramatic program cost increases the program
is experiencing. The Navy and the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) maintain that authorization of low rate
initial production is needed in fiscal year 2000 to assure that
TMD-configured Aegis destroyers can be equipped with an early
Navy area defense capability. However, the committee believes
that the revised schedule provides inadequate initial
operational test and evaluation of the SM-2 IVA prior to low
rate initial production. The committee also understands that
deferring authority for low rate initial production to fiscal
year 2001 will delay Navy area defense deployment by only one
to three months. The committee believes that the program as now
laid out is not executable, based on both the technical
complications and the annual increases that the Navy and BMDO
agree must be provided to keep the program on the fiscal year
2003 schedule.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in Navy area
defense procurement, a decrease of $55.0 million, and $323.4
million in PE 64867C for Navy area defense development, an
increase of $55.0 million. The committee believes that this
reapportionment will provide the best opportunity for the Navy
and BMDO to overcome Navy area defense development challenges
and allow a more appropriate alignment of low rate initial
production, continued development activities, and initial
operational test and evaluation. The committee expects the
Department of Defense to come forward in its fiscal year 2001
budget request with a more affordable funding profile for the
Navy area defense program.
Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC-3)
The budget request contained $300.9 million for PAC-3
procurement and $29.1 million in PE 64865C for PAC-3
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD).
The committee believes that progress in the PAC-3, while
slow to evolve, has been substantial over the past year. This
progress culminated in a successful ballistic missile intercept
test of the PAC-3 system in March 1999.
However, the committee is concerned about the substantial
growth in the unit procurement cost of the PAC-3 missile and
understands that much of the cost growth is attributable to the
transfer of procurement funds to offset a cost overrun in the
EMD phase of the program and the major reduction in the number
of missiles to be procured from 1,200 to 560. The committee
believes that the PAC-3 capability will be of major importance
and that the number now planned for procurement is insufficient
to meet identified requirements. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide details of plans to the
Congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000, to reduce
the cost of the PAC-3 missile.
The committee is also concerned that the PAC-3 funding
profile identified by the Department of Defense is inadequate
to sustain continued procurement at a rate that will keep pace
with the rapidly evolving short- and medium-range ballistic
missile threat. The committee believes that the demonstrated
technical success and importance of the program provide more
than adequate justification to increase annual procurement
funding to correct shortfalls caused by program cost growth.
Therefore, the committee recommends $300.9 million for PAC-
3 procurement, the requested amount, and $77.6 million in PE
64865C for PAC-3 engineering and manufacturing development, an
increase of $48.5 million.
Space-based laser
The budget request contained $75.0 million in PE 63173C and
$63.8 million in PE 63876F for the space based laser (SBL).
The committee understands that the SBL program has been
restructured, merging competing contractors into a national
team working toward an in-flight experiment in 2012. The
committee believes that this restructuring responds to concerns
expressed in the committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-
532) that the SBL program, as then planned with a launch of a
readiness demonstrator in 2005, was not executable at
sustainable funding levels and would unnecessarily restrict
technical options. The committee believes that the
restructuring will mitigate technical risk, allow for the
development and incorporation of advanced technologies, is
executable at sustainable funding levels, and provides a
potentially effective management structure.
However, the committee is concerned that the program as
currently structured does not provide sufficient emphasis on
the development and fabrication of laser optics. The committee
understands that the current program schedule is driven to a
substantial degree by the development of segmented and/or
deployable mirrors. The committee believes that the schedule
risk can be mitigated by redirecting program funds to
development of prototype actively controlled lightweight optics
and through a management structure which provides appropriate
emphasis on the optical payload element.
The committee notes that the SBL restructuring has resulted
in a modest delay in the initiation of program activities.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million
in PE 63173C without prejudice, and the budget request in PE
63876F for SBL.
Technical operations
The budget request contained $190.7 million in PE 63874C
for ballistic missile defense (BMD) technical operations.
The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization is leveraging commercial internet
technologies to improve the utilization of data that is now
dispersed among several data centers. The committee believes
that upgrading these centers and establishing a seamless, wide
bandwidth information infrastructure between the centers would
allow access by the entire BMD community, resulting in
significant efficiencies. The committee believes that such a
network would allow distributed BMD modeling and simulation,
including hardware-in-the-loop simulations, and would enhance
flexibility to meet evolving threats more rapidly.
Therefore, the committee recommends $200.7 million in PE
63874C, an increase of $10.0 million for development of a wide
bandwidth information infrastructure to link current data
centers as well as specific applications to take full advantage
of such an infrastructure.
Theater high altitude area defense
The budget request contained $577.5 million in PE 64861C
for the theater high altitude area defense (THAAD) system.
The committee notes with concern that the THAAD system
failed its sixth consecutive attempt to intercept a ballistic
missile target. The committee is encouraged that the last test
demonstrated success in missile flight, divert and attitude
control system function, seeker function, and end game
maneuver, and supports continuation of that THAAD testing
through the next four intercept tests.
The committee understands that the cost-sharing arrangement
negotiated between the THAAD contractor and the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization last year requires the contractor
to reimburse the government $15.0 million as a consequence of
the failure of flight test nine. The committee is also aware
that the recent test failure indicates a continuing need to
dedicate budget resources in programs that demonstrate success.
The committee recommends that PE 64861C be decreased $15.0
million and that another $90.0 million, the estimated cost for
three ballistic missile intercept tests, be transferred to the
upper tier program, PE 64218C described elsewhere in this
report.
The committee recommends $472.5 million in PE 64861C, a
decrease of $105.0 million, and $90.0 million in PE 64218C for
Upper Tier intercept testing.
Upper tier
The budget request contained no funding in PE 64218C for a
new upper tier program.
The committee notes that the Department intends to provide
funds to this program element starting in fiscal year 2002,
after evaluating the performance of the Navy Theater Wide
System (NTW) and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system in December 2000. The system that achieves greater
success in its intercept test program will be funded to achieve
a first unit equipped in fiscal year 2007.
The committee supports the premise that success should be
rewarded and that upper tier ballistic missile defense should
be deployed as soon as possible. Nevertheless, the committee
has serious concerns about the approach adopted by the
Department. First, it is symptomatic of the serious fiscal
constraints imposed on the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) as it attempts to develop and field systems
to address virtually the only mission area in which the growth
of the threat is outstripping the military's ability to defend
against it. Second, BMDO has always described NTW and THAAD as
distinct elements in a coherent theater missile defense
architecture. The upper tier strategy adopted by the Department
fails to address how accelerating one system while delaying the
other will meet the requirements that this coherent
architecture is intended to meet. Third, reducing funding to
the program with the more serious technical challenges will not
address in a timely manner those technical challenges. Fourth,
the approach adopted by the Department would compare, as though
equal, a limited capability interim NTW that does not meet
operational requirements with an objective THAAD design. The
appropriate programmatic outcome of such a comparison has not
been adequately clarified to the committee.
To address these concerns, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Congressional
defense committees by January 15, 2000, that describes: 1) the
Department's plan to accommodate success in both NTW and THAAD,
2) how the Department intends to meet the requirements
identified in its TMD architecture if it delays one of its
upper tier systems, and 3) coordinated timelines associated
with THAAD and NTW in the Department's upper tier program.
While the committee remains concerned with the Department's
upper tier ``neckdown'' strategy, the new upper tier program
does offer the potential to reinforce robust upper tier
intercept testing for the upper tier system most capable of
executing additional funds. Consequently the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 231) that authorizes the new
program element in fiscal year 2000 and transfers $90.0 million
in funding, the estimated cost for three ballistic missile
intercept tests. The committee directs the Secretary to use
this funding to support the upper tier program that
demonstrates greater success in intercept tests. The committee
expects that this funding would be available to the THAAD
program if it achieves success in tests throughout the reminder
of fiscal year 1999.
Biological warfare defense program
The budget request contained $145.9 million in PE 62383E
for the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's (DARPA)
applied research program in biological warfare defense. The
request represents an increase of $68.6 million from the
original budget estimate for fiscal year 2000 that was
contained in the fiscal year 1999 budget request and includes
$12.0 million to continue the development and demonstration of
consequence management planning and support systems.
The goal of the DARPA biological warfare defense program is
to thwart the use of biological warfare agents (including
bacterial, viral, and bio-engineered organisms and toxins) by
both military and terrorist opponents through the development
of technologies that are applicable to broad classes of
pathogens and toxins (rather than the agent specific approaches
that are currently in use). The committee is impressed by the
progress that has been made through the program by research in
medical countermeasures, advanced diagnostics, sensors for
detection of biological and chemical warfare agents, and
technologies for decontamination, and neutralization for air
and water. However, notwithstanding the emphasis by the
President and the Congress on responding to threats of the use
of weapons of mass destruction, the committee is concerned
about the large increase in funding for the DARPA program over
such a short period of time. The committee notes the comments
regarding ``coordination and integration of the DARPA program
under program management and oversight'' of the Department's
chemical and biological defense program in the ``Department of
Defense Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC) Defense Annual Report
to Congress, March 1999.'' The committee expects that such
coordination and integration will be maintained on a continuing
basis and that increased emphasis will also be placed on
coordination of the DARPA program with corresponding biological
research programs of the National Institutes of Health and the
Centers for Disease Control. The committee expects the
Secretary of Defense to address these issues in the next annual
NBC defense report to the Congress.
The committee understands that DARPA is presently
prototyping its consequence management projects with users and
intended to complete the project in fiscal year 2001. The
committee notes, however, that the budget request continues to
fund the program at approximately $10.0 million annually. The
project also appears to duplicate ongoing work in consequence
management planning and support at the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency. The committee does not believe that the consequence
management project meets the high risk, high payoff,
breakthrough concepts and technologies criteria normally
associated with DARPA programs, and directs the transfer of the
program to the DOD chemical and biological defense program
following completion of the prototype phase.
The committee recommends $133.9 million in PE 62383E for
the DARPA biological warfare defense program, a decrease of
$12.0 million for the DARPA consequence management project.
Chemical-biological defense program
The budget request contained $716.9 million for the
chemical-biological defense program, including $339.5 million
in research, development, test, and evaluation, and $337.4
million in procurement. The budget request also included $145.8
million for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) biological warfare (BW defense program (PE 62383E).
The committee notes that for the fiscal year 2000 to 2005
program period, the Department of Defense (DOD) has added
$380.0 million to the program for research and development of
biological warfare defense and vaccines, to complement earlier
increases to the program that totaled almost $1 billion for the
fiscal year 1999 to 2003 program. The committee is aware of the
progress that has been made in consolidating, coordinating, and
integrating the chemical-biological (CB) defense requirements
of all the military services into a single DOD CB defense
program. Through the Joint Service Agreement on NBC Defense,
the Department has established a viable management structure
that should ensure that the operational needs of the military
services and the major warfighting commanders are fully
integrated and coordinated, and that duplication of effort is
eliminated from the program.
The committee notes the establishment of the NBC Defense
Board within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide
oversight of the program and fiscal and programming guidance.
The committee believes that the membership of the board should
be expanded to include the Secretary of the Army (the DOD
executive agent for the program) and a senior member of the
Joint Staff to represent the views of the major warfighting
commanders.
The committee believes that significant progress has been
made in the NBC defense capability of U.S. forces, but
recognizes that continuing emphasis will be required in
development and acquisitions programs, logistics, and training
and readiness to realize the goals of the program.
The committee makes the following specific recommendations
with respect to the program:
Chemical and biological point detectors
The Congress added $2.0 million in fiscal year 1998 and
$7.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for basic and applied research
in chemical and biological point detector technology. The
committee notes the progress that has been made in the
development of thin film sensors for chemical agents and of
acoustic and fluorescence-based biological sensors. The
committee also notes the promise that these technologies show
for the development of small, light-weight, chemical and
biological point detectors, and that these technologies should
be competitive with other advanced chemical and biological
agent detection technologies now in basic and applied research.
The committee also notes the potential for using ion mass trap
spectrometry in integrated multi-sensor detectors to improve
detection rates and reduce false alarms. The committee believes
that these technologies should compete for funding within the
appropriate program elements of the Department's chemical-
biological defense program.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
61384BP and an increase of $5.5 million in PE 62384BP to
accelerate basic and applied research in advanced technologies
for chemical and biological point detectors.
Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors
The budget request contained $31.4 million in PE 61384BP
for basic research in medical and non-medical chemical-
biological defense.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE
61384BP for basic research in organic and inorganic optical
computing device materials for use in standoff sensors for
detection and identification of chemical agents.
Safeguard
The budget request contained $64.8 million in PE 62384BP
for applied research in non-medical and medical chemical-
biological defense.
The committee notes the progress that has been made in the
Safeguard technology development and demonstration project for
the use of stand-off optical spectroscopy for the detection of
chemical agents and other chemical vapor effluents and is aware
of its potential use on the battlefield and for
counterproliferation surveillance. The committee understands
that the establishment of an operational requirements document
is being considered and that the Safeguard technology is to be
further demonstrated and evaluated in an advanced warfighting
experiment during fiscal year 2000. The committee also
understands that a funded development program in fiscal year
2001 is being considered.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million in PE 62384BP to continue the Safeguard technology
development and demonstration program.
Small unit biological detector and chemical-biological
individual sampler
Section 1701 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-160) requires that the budget
of the Department of Defense reflect a coordinated and
integrated chemical-biological defense program for the military
departments, that shall not be included in the budget accounts
of the military departments, but shall be set forth as a
separate account in the Department's budget. In the statement
of managers which accompanied the conference report on H.R.
1119 (H. Rept. 105-132), the conferees directed the Assistant
to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological
Defense Programs) to ensure that all research, development, and
acquisition for the Department's Chemical Biological Quick
Reaction Force (CBQRF) and its components (which at that time
was understood to include the Marine Corps' Chemical Biological
Incident Response Force (CBIRF)) are fully integrated and
coordinated with the Department's chemical-biological defense
program. The committee notes recommendations for increased
funding in PE 65873M, Marine Corps Program Wide Support, to
continue development of a small unit biological detector and of
a chemical-biological individual sampler for the CBIRF. The
committee also notes that applied research, advanced
development, and demonstration of several advanced chemical and
biological detector technologies are being conducted in PE
62384BP, PE 63384BP and PE 63884BP.
The committee recommends no separate funding for either the
small unit biological detector or the chemical-biological
individual sampler and directs that these two projects compete
for funding within the appropriate program elements of the
Department's chemical-biological defense program.
Complex systems design
The budget request contained $10.9 million in PE 63704D8Z
for special technical support, but included no funding for
complex systems design.
The Department of Defense currently employs a number of
computer based synthesis and analysis tools which advance all
phases of the life cycle of complex defense systems. From
concept design, through development and production, and
throughout life cycle ownership of a complex system, these
tools have dramatically improved the efficiency and reduced the
costs of each discrete phase.
However, since each tool employs its own unique data
representation and data storage mechanism, there exists, with
few exceptions, no substantial interoperability between tools
at the semantic level for interchange of similar data
structures. This inability to collaborate results in a
development process that remains largely manual, with no means
for even semi-automated configuration management of the total
project design.
The committee recommends $15.9 million for PE 63704D8Z, an
increase of $5.0 million to pursue the development of a complex
systems design program that would allow for an integrated
digital environment for complex systems design. The committee
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in
the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.
Cryofracture disposal of anti-personnel landmines
The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63104D8Z
for explosives demilitarization technology, but included no
funding for cryofracture disposal of personnel landmines.
The committee notes the growing issue of explosive
demilitarization and supports use of innovative technology to
solve this problem.
The committee recommends $13.2 million in PE 63104D8Z, an
increase of $2.0 million for cryofracture landmine disposal.
CV-22 Osprey
The budget request contained $106.7 million in PE 116404BB
for special operations tactical systems development.
The CV-22 Osprey will provide critical capability for long-
range special operations, contingency operations and special
warfare. The committee notes that a pre-planned product
improvement (P3I) will add additional capability and refinement
to the CV-22 that will give special forces significant
advantage in areas critical to mission performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE
116404BB for the CV-22 Osprey P3I.
Domestic preparedness for response to terrorism involving weapons of
mass destruction
The committee has repeatedly emphasized the need for a more
coordinated program for domestic emergency preparedness for
response to terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). The Research and Development subcommittee's hearing in
March 1999, which focused on research and development support
to WMD domestic emergency preparedness, provided an
understanding of the plan and programs of the Department of
Defense and other federal agencies that support the domestic
emergency preparedness program and how they are coordinated
among the federal agencies and with State and local agencies.
The committee notes, as discussed elsewhere in this report,
that the Attorney General's ``Five-Year Interagency
Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan'' serves as a
baseline strategy for coordination of national policy and
operational capabilities to combat terrorism in the United
States and against American interests overseas. Among the goals
addressed in the plan are identification of critical
technologies for targeted research and development investments
and development of strategies to improve state and local
capabilities for responding to terrorist acts, including WMD-
and cyber-terrorism. The committee understands that the Weapons
of Mass Destruction Preparedness (WMDP) research and
development interagency working subgroup, chaired by the
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy, is
developing a strategic research and development plan that will
clarify and coordinate agency responsibilities, identify gaps
and overlaps in the WMDP research and development program, and
guide the preparation and review of agency WMDP budget requests
for fiscal year 2001. The committee expects that fiscal year
2001 budget requests will include the first coordinated WMDP
research and development program that complies with the
Attorney General's strategic plan.
The committee recognizes that coordination and management
of the WMD domestic emergency preparedness program is an
evolving process, and supports these initial steps toward
developing a more integrated program. The committee emphasizes
that the domestic emergency preparedness program will require
continuing emphasis at the highest levels of government in
order to realize the goal of increasing the effectiveness of
Federal, State, and local agencies to respond to the threat of
WMD terrorist incidents. The committee expects that a summary
of actions taken to increase the overall effectiveness of the
program will be included in the domestic emergency preparedness
annex to the President's annual report on counterterrorism and
antiterrorism expenditures that is submitted to the Congress in
accordance with section 1051 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) and
section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261).
Facial recognition technology
The budget request contained $52.2 million for the counter
terror technical support (CTTS) program in PE 63122D8Z.
The CTTS is an interagency program for development and
demonstration of surveillance, physical security, and
infrastructure protection technology.
The committee continues to support development of advanced
technology for protection of critical infrastructure and other
uses, and recommends $55.2 million in PE 63122D8Z, an increase
of $3.0 million for continued development of biometric access
control technology.
Flat panel displays
The budget request contained $31.3 million in PE 62708E for
the development and demonstration of high definition display
technology.
The committee understands that major components of the flat
panel display initiative include: development of projection,
head mounted and direct view displays, development of equipment
and components required for manufacture of advanced display
technologies, and prototyping of display systems.
In 1994, the President and the Department of Defense
announced a five-year National Flat Panel Display Initiative
(NFPDI) to establish a viable domestic industrial capability
for the manufacture of high definition displays for use by the
military services and to provide the Department with assured
access to affordable flat panel display technology for defense
applications. The committee notes the progress that has been
made in the development of a domestic industrial capability for
commercial and military applications of flat panel displays and
believes that the program has been successful in meeting the
objectives of the initiative.
The committee recommends $40.0 million in PE 62708E, an
increase of $8.7 million for the high definition display
technology program.
Forging lead time technology
The budget request contained $6.7 million in PE 78011S for
the Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology research
and development program.
Metal forgings are frequently identified as lead time
drivers for many weapons systems. Traditional forging processes
are characterized by trial and error, and can be very expensive
when small quantities of spare parts are needed. In fiscal year
2001, the Department of Defense plans to initiate a Forging
Lead Time Technology program to develop ways to make small
quantities of forgings for spare parts for land, sea, and air
weapon systems, quickly and economically.
The committee recommends an increase of $750,000 in PE
78011S to initiate the Forging Lead Time Technology program in
fiscal year 2000.
Ground-based common sensor/prophet
The budget request contained $109.5 million in PE 35885G,
including $12.8 million for the ground-based common sensor
(GBCS)/Prophet tactical signals intelligence (SIGINT) system.
The committee notes that the Army terminated the GBCS
program in November 1999 for lack of performance, and that the
service wants to move to the new, less complicated Prophet
program. The committee is concerned that the GBCS effort, begun
over seven years ago, was unsuccessful because of a lack of
achievable requirements and an overly sophisticated technical
approach.
The committee has received limited formal explanation of
the evolving Prophet concept. However, the Army's approach to
Prophet is more simplistic than GBCS, but appears to be
inadequate to properly collect and process modern battlefield
SIGINT necessary to provide useful tactical intelligence.
Furthermore, the committee questions the need for a ground-
based tactical SIGINT collection capability to supplement the
Army's airborne efforts.
The committee directs that no authorized or appropriated
funds be obligated or expended until the Secretary of the Army
provides the Congressional defense and intelligence committees
a detailed concept of operations for Prophet together with a
detailed program definition and technical approach for this
ground-based, tactical SIGINT collection system.
The committee recommends the budget request for the ground
based common sensor (GBCS)/Prophet tactical signals
intelligence (SIGINT) system.
Information systems technology, superiority, and security
The budget request contained $1,003.9 million for
information technology research, development, test, and
evaluation. The request also included $279.0 million for
research and development in support of the Department of
Defense (DOD) information systems security program.
The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) and
the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on
H.R. 1119 (H. Rept 105-340) directed the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the Congress a report on the status of the
Department of Defense's information security program and
additional actions that should be taken to assure the increased
security and integrity of the defense information
infrastructure. The substance of the Secretary's report was
addressed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Department of
Defense's Senior Civilian for C4I, and the Joint Staff and
military services' chief information officers in a committee
hearing in February 1999. The committee received testimony on
implementation of the Department's information technology and
systems architecture, progress in joint information systems
interoperability, and measures being taken to protect critical
defense information infrastructure. Among the significant
issues cited by the witnesses were:
(1) The need for resources that would enable the
Department to respond rapidly and flexibly to the
dynamic pace of information technology and put emerging
and demonstrated information technology into the field
quickly;
(2) The need for a flexible and continuous funding
mechanism to improve capabilities in critical
information systems and technologies identified by the
major theater commanders;
(3) Unfunded requirements for critical information
technology development and system upgrades through the
end of the Future Years Defense Program;
(4) Acquisition and retention of uniformed and
civilian information technology professionals in the
Department;
(5) Requirements for advanced C4I modeling and
simulation;
(6) The need to incentivize private industry to
achieve higher levels of information assurance in the
private sector;
(7) Accelerated implementation of public key
infrastructure in the Department; and
(8) The increased cost and potential degradation in
current and future military operational capabilities
that result from reallocation of DOD-assigned radio
frequency spectrum in accordance with Title VI of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law
103-66).
The committee believes that the Department has established
an effective information assurance strategy and taken a number
of actions that should improve information assurance for
defense information systems. The committee recognizes that a
significant and continuing commitment will be required
throughout the Department to insure the success of the strategy
and the security of the defense information infrastructure.
The committee makes the following specific recommendations
with respect to the program:
Global networked information enterprise security
The budget request contained $232.7 million in PE 33140G
for the Information Systems Security Program.
The committee notes the creation of the Department of
Defense's Global Networked Information Enterprise (GNIE) which
will result in the establishment of a wide-spread, secure,
available information systems network to support U.S.
information superiority objectives.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
33140G to support the development of advanced security measures
for elements of the GNIE.
Information assurance
The committee believes that the Department needs to
continue its efforts to protect the defense information
infrastructure from information attacks and to detect and react
to information attacks against the defense information
infrastructure through the wide-spread deployment of intrusion
detection capabilities. Continued development of attack
sensing/correlation tools should be pursued in order to keep
national command authorities apprised of ongoing attacks that
could affect national security. The Department should also
accelerate the development of improved capabilities to assure
the security and integrity of the defense information
infrastructure.
The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE
33140G for the development of enhanced information assurance
tools for protection of the defense information infrastructure
and for real-time detection, collection, and analysis of attack
sensing and warning data.
Information assurance for national critical infrastructures
The committee believes that protection of the nation's
critical infrastructure against strategic information warfare
(IW) attacks will require new tools and technology for
information assurance. The protection of the large-scale
telecommunications networks that comprise a critical segment of
the U.S. information infrastructure will require highly complex
and sophisticated, integrated information assurance solutions
that are highly automated and operate in near-real-time. The
ability to assess the vulnerability of the domestic electric
power grid infrastructure to information attack will require
the development of integrated models that possess real-time
functionality and can be used to develop strategies and
procedures to detect and respond to terrorist attacks on the
national electric power grid.
Because the defense information infrastructure is closely
linked and dependent upon the domestic information
infrastructure, the committee believes that government,
industry, and academia should form partnerships to
cooperatively develop information assurance solutions to
protect the nation's critical information systems
infrastructure. The committee further believes that such
partnerships should be guided by a shared concern for the need
for strategic information assurance and strong incentives for
industry participation.
Report on information superiority
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the Congressional defense and intelligence committees with the
submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request, a
comprehensive report on the Department's information
superiority program. The report shall include, but not be
limited to, an assessment of the interoperability, reliability,
and security of DOD national and tactical information systems.
The report shall identify the critical information superiority
challenges confronting the Department, outline DOD strategy for
maintaining military information superiority, and identify
critical shortfalls, requirements, and related issues, to
include any proposed legislation necessary to address perceived
problems. The committee requests that measures taken to address
the issues raised in its February 1999 hearing be addressed in
the report.
Joint theater air and missile defense organization
The budget request contained $17.1 million in PE 65126J for
the joint theater air and missile defense organization
(JTAMDO).
The committee is aware that various organizations within
the Department use different models and simulation
architectures to assess the capabilities and effectiveness of
specific air and missile defense systems. The independently
derived assumptions and operational parameters built in to
these models and simulations make the comparison of their
analyses problematic, resulting in an unsatisfactory basis for
major decisions involving funding priority or key milestones.
The committee understands that JTAMDO is the organization
within the Department of Defense chartered to plan, coordinate,
and oversee joint integrated theater air and missile defense
requirements, joint operational concepts, and operational
architectures. Consequently, the committee believes that JTAMDO
is in the best position to determine which of the currently
used models has the best fidelity, and that JTAMDO must have
the authority to rationalize the use of models and simulations
such that the results are accurate and comparable for all
systems.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to designate
the director of JTAMDO as the DOD executive agent for
management of joint models and simulations for air and missile
defense programs. The committee directs the director of JTAMDO
to establish a uniform and consistent set of models and
simulation architectures which JTAMDO, the services, and the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) shall use to
assess the effectiveness of all air and missile defense
programs.
The committee is also concerned that the BMDO may be
duplicating some of the functions of JTAMDO in its theater air
and missile defense project (project 3155, PE 63873). The
committee supports JTAMDO's role in establishing architectures
and requirements and BMDO's role as the acquisition agency for
missile defense.
The committee recommends $20.1 million in PE 65126J, an
increase of $3.0 million to assist JTAMDO in establishing the
use of uniform models and simulations.
Logistics sustainment technology
The budget request contained $17.3 million in PE 63712S for
generic logistic research and development technology
demonstrations and $6.7 million in PE 78011S for the Defense
Logistics Agency manufacturing technology research and
development program.
The committee notes that an increasing portion of our
defense budget is being used to support and manage large
inventories of older weapons systems. The committee believes
that costs associated with logistics and maintenance must be
reduced in order to free resources to develop and procure
modern systems. Leveraging the best practices of commercial
industry in logistics and maintenance planning and management
could permit the Department of Defense to reduce these costs in
weapons and supporting systems.
Among the many aging weapon systems, aircraft are being
kept in the inventory much longer than originally anticipated,
and aircraft parts that were never planned for replacement
often must be procured after the technical data, manufacturing
processes, and the supplier base that originally provided these
items are no longer available. This results in significantly
increased costs and unacceptably long logistics response times.
The committee notes that a partnership among the Department
of Defense, the manufacturing industries, and academia is
developing a new strategy to address this problem. The strategy
encompasses the design associated with reengineering such parts
and manufacturing techniques that can produce very low
quantities of the parts in a cost effective manner. Past models
have shown that lead-times can be reduced from 273 days to 97
days for complex parts, new suppliers can be added to the
production base, and costs can be significantly reduced. In
fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense plans to begin a
program for the development of aging aircraft sustainment
technology to address these issues.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
78011S to initiate the Aging Aircraft Sustainment Technology
program in fiscal year 2000. The committee also recommends an
increase of $3.0 million in PE 63712S to establish a
competitive sustainment demonstration aimed at dramatic
reductions in sustainment costs and improved logistics
efficiency.
Medical free electron laser
The budget request contained $9.7 million in PE 62227D8Z
for the medical free electron laser program (MFEL).
The committee is aware that the MFEL, which continues to be
managed under rigorous peer review, has demonstrated
significant advances enabling new treatments for burns, eye
surgery, and bone cutting and also shows promise in the area of
brain tumor surgery.
The committee supports the MFEL and recommends $15.0
million in PE 62227D8Z, an increase of $5.3 million for MFEL.
National technology alliance
The budget request contained $88.4 million in PE 35102BQ
for Defense Imagery Analysis Program, and included for $8.1
million for National Imagery Mapping Agency (NIMA) technology
investment.
The committee is aware that the NIMA National Technology
Alliance (NTA) program continues to demonstrate its value
within the intelligence community while it has expanded to
address the needs of the Department of Defense. NTA innovation
in a variety of technologies, with applications that cross
department, service and agency boundaries are reducing costs,
increasing performance, and saving limited funds.
The committee continues to support the NTA's efforts to
provide solutions based on advances in technology for both the
Department of Defense and the intelligence community. The
committee recommends $93.4 million in PE 35102BQ, an increase
of $5.0 million for the NTA.
Pilot program for revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation
centers of the Department of Defense
The committee notes that section 246 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261) authorized the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot
program for revitalizing laboratories and test and evaluation
centers of the Department of Defense. The focus of this pilot
program is to prove the effectiveness of cooperative
relationships with universities and other private sector
entities for the performance of research and development
functions.
Under this provision, the Secretary has designated the
Aberdeen Test Center as the Army's test and evaluation center
to participate as a pilot center because of its critical ties
to the research, development, test, and evaluation community.
The committee also notes that the Arnold Engineering and
Development Center was selected as the Air Force candidate
based on proactive and highly successful efforts to maximize
use of its facilities by other government and commercial
customers, thereby reducing annual operating costs to the Air
Force. The Naval Air Warfare Center has also demonstrated
efforts to expand relationships and cooperative ventures with
industry and other government agencies and will provide
excellent examples of maximizing efficiencies to other Navy
activities.
The committee strongly supports these pilot program
initiatives and encourages the services to document and report
the activities of these pilot centers.
Special operations forces reconnaissance
The budget request contained $1.4 million in PE 116405BB
for Special Operations Command (SOCOM) intelligence research
and development. No funds were requested for the special
operations tactical video system (SOTVS) digital underwater
camera.
The committee notes that a commercial camera system for the
joint SOTVS digital still-camera requirement is not available
and that the commercial market has no intention of providing an
off-the-shelf solution.
Further, a digital imagery capability would provide near-
real-time information support to special operations forces and
would not require a wet-film processing requirement as do the
current film-based cameras. The committee believes this is a
capability that needs to be provided to the SOF forces as
quickly as possible, and that a government-funded digital
camera is the only potential near-term solution to this
reconnaissance requirement. The committee understands that $4.1
million is required to complete development of a camera that
meets all joint requirements.
The committee recommends $3.5 million in PE116405BB, an
increase of $2.1 million for the SOTVS digital underwater
camera.
Special operations forces small boat improvements
The budget request contained $106.7 million in PE 116404BB
for special operations tactical systems improvements.
Special operations forces (SOF) personnel delivery craft
are currently powered by gasoline engines coupled to stern
drives and are transported to deployment on Navy ships. Early
in the next century, the Navy will no longer allow gasoline
onboard ships, requiring the gasoline engines on SOF craft to
be replaced by engines that burn mid-distillate or diesel fuel.
The committee notes that a new commercially available
propulsion technology has been developed that offers improved
performance, simplifies the drive train, and has been used
commercially with a diesel engine. The committee supports
evaluation of this innovative propulsion system and diesel
engines aboard SOF craft and notes that suitable SOF craft are
available for conducting such propulsion tests.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
116404BB for small craft propulsion systems testing.
Special operations tactical systems development
The budget request contained $106.7 million for special
operations tactical systems development in PE 116404BB,
including $18.3 million for underwater systems.
The committee is aware that the advanced seal delivery
systems (ASDS) will provide a significant new capability for
special operations forces. The committee notes that the ASDS
program has experienced unexpected cost increases and schedule
delays that have forced program restructuring and that ASDS is
now expected to begin testing and sea trials in the latter part
of fiscal year 1999. The committee is aware that the Special
Operations Command has fully acknowledged the importance of
ASDS and committed to internally reprogram funds in order to
support the revised schedule. However, this reprogramming has
necessitated the reduction of funds from other important
special operations programs.
The committee supports fielding the ASDS as promptly as
possible, with a minimum of reprogramming, and recommends an
increase of $8.0 million in PE 116404BB for ASDS.
Strategic environmental research program
The budget request contained $53.5 million in PE 63716D8Z
for the strategic environmental research program (SERP).
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
taken steps to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals. The
committee supports these efforts and directs the Secretary of
Defense to evaluate the use of ethyl lactate, a nontoxic
biodegradable solvent as an alternative to toxic solvents for
appropriate purposes as part of the SERP.
The committee recommends $53.5 million in PE 63716D8Z for
SERP.
Thermionics
The budget request contained $203.5 million in PE 62715BR
for development of the technologies relevant to nuclear and
other advanced weapons systems, but included no funds to
continue the development of thermionic power conversion
technology.
The committee notes the requirement for nuclear space power
systems that will support long lifetimes for space satellites,
deep space missions, and future manned exploration. The
objective of the advanced thermionics program is to advance the
state of thermionic power conversion, develop high performance
and highly reliable thermionic converters, and demonstrate
their feasibility in thermionic power systems. The committee
believes that increased emphasis in the program should be
placed on the development of components and materials used in
thermionic converters, thermionic physics research, and
development of coatings to increase surface emissivity.
The committee recommends $206.5 million in PE 62715BR, an
increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of
thermionic power conversion technology.
University research initiatives
The budget request contained $216.7 million in PE 61103D8Z
for university research initiatives (URI), including $10.0
million for the defense experimental program to stimulate
competitive research (DEPSCoR).
The committee supports continuation of the DEPSCoR program
to strengthen the infrastructure, enhance research, train and
motivate scientists and researchers, and to assist the DEPSCoR
states in becoming more competitive for research funding and
training grants.
The committee also notes the importance of advanced high-
yield software development and the rapid pace of software
development required to support advancing computer technology.
The committee recommends $218.3 million in PE 61103D8Z, an
increase of $1.5 million to continue work by the Department of
Defense to develop methods for training and developing high
yield software to increase the efficiency of military software
programmers. The committee directs that, of the funds
authorized in PE 61103D8Z, a total of $25.0 million shall be
for DEPSCoR.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing
and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 2000.
Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research
This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal
year 2000 for technology base programs.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Collaborative Program To Evaluate And Demonstrate Advanced
Technologies For Advanced Capability Combat Vehicles
This provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish a cooperative program between the Army and the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop future
combat vehicle concepts for the Army.
Section 212--Revisions in Manufacturing Technology Program
This section would amend section 2525 of title 10, United
States Code, to include as one of the purposes of the defense
manufacturing technology program the development of advanced
manufacturing technologies and processes that address broad
defense-related manufacturing inefficiencies and requirements.
The committee believes that this focus and the focus on the
promotion of dual-use manufacturing processes should result in
a more effective defense manufacturing technology program. The
provision would also remove the requirement that requires the
Secretary of Defense to establish percentage goals for cost
sharing in the manufacturing technology program. With these
recommendations, the committee emphasizes the flexibility that
is inherent in the program and available to the Secretary of
Defense in establishing program cost-sharing guidelines and
cost-sharing waivers for individual manufacturing technology
projects.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
Section 231--Additional Program Elements for Ballistic Missile Defense
Programs
This provision would establish three new program elements
within the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for the upper
tier, space based infrared system (SBIRS) high, and SBIRS Low.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 241--Designation of the Secretary of the Army as Executive
Agent for High Energy Laser Technologies
This provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to
designate the Secretary of the Army as the Department of
Defense executive agent for oversight of research, development,
test and evaluation of specified high energy laser technologies
and mandate that functions as executive agent be carried out
through the Army Space and Missile Defense Command at the high
energy laser test facility at White Sands Missile Range, New
Mexico.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
The committee's actions throughout the bill reflect a
comprehensive legislative and budgetary approach designed to
address the systemic decline in the readiness of U.S. armed
forces. The combination of an increasing pace of operations--
driven largely by the expansive and open-ended nature of
peacekeeping, peace-making, peace enforcement and other
humanitarian missions--declining defense budgets and shrinking
U.S. forces have created a military that is doing too much with
too little and is suffering the inevitable consequences.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request for operation and
maintenance represents an increase in spending of more than $7
billion over spending levels projected last year for fiscal
year 2000. Despite the fact that this increase is not all
readiness related, it is nonetheless a welcome recognition on
the part of the Administration that the military services
confront serious readiness shortfalls. It should be noted that
in addition to substantial non-readiness related funding
contained in the operation and maintenance title, more than
$1.2 billion is also included for commissary operations and
Pentagon renovation funding. The committee questions why the
department continues to include funding for these programs in
these accounts despite Congressional direction to fund them
elsewhere in the budget.
Despite increased operation and maintenance spending, the
budget request falls well short of addressing many of the
military services' unfunded readiness requirements. Within
weeks of the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request being
submitted to Congress, the service chiefs informed the
committee that the defense budget was at least $3.3 billion
short of meeting minimal readiness requirements. Further,
approximately 50 percent of the shortfalls over the next six
years, identified by the service chiefs, are readiness related.
Compounding the problem, the shortfalls identified by the
service chiefs earlier this year did not take into account the
billions of dollars of direct and indirect readiness shortfalls
being created by the high pace and costs of U.S. operations in
the Balkan region.
The committee remains deeply concerned with the continued
under-funding of key readiness accounts and believes that
shortages in the field are getting worse. For example, the Air
Force unfunded priority list identifies a spare parts shortfall
of approximately $200.0 million next fiscal year-a shortfall
that follows on the heels of Congress adding a total of $194.0
million for Air Force spare parts in the fiscal year 1999
defense authorization bill and last fall's supplemental defense
appropriations bill. Despite the addition by Congress of
approximately $151.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to arrest the
backlog of depot maintenance and repair, the budget request
proposes an overall reduction in funding for depot maintenance
and repair, the chiefs' unfunded priorities list identifies a
shortfall of $340 million and the depot maintenance backlog is
more than $1 billion. After the addition by Congress of $300.0
million to the real property maintenance and repair accounts in
fiscal year 1999 and the proposal in the budget request for an
increase of $245.0 million, the chiefs' unfunded priorities
list still identifies a real property and repair shortfall of
over $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2000. Despite similar
Congressional and Administration increases for base operations
funding over the past year, the services unfunded priority
requirements list nonetheless identifies a base operations
shortfall of over $450.0 million in fiscal year 2000.
This year, the committee once again conducted a number of
readiness-related field hearings in the United States and
overseas in an effort to obtain a more accurate and detailed
assessment of readiness problems. In years past, the
overwhelming impression left on the committee was of an
overextended force having to accomplish more in an environment
of declining human and budgetary resources.
In addition to the common complaints about lack of spare
parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure and growing
equipment and facilities' backlogs, senior military leaders and
even junior front-line supervisors also repeatedly informed the
committee of the difficulties of conducting quality training
and operational deployments with significant personnel
shortages. For example, the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise
began a six-month tour with the U.S. Sixth Fleet 464 people
short of its authorized billets. Army officers related the
difficulties of training at the National Training Center with
units that were significantly undermanned. Air Force
maintenance personnel told of the difficulties in maintaining
equipment without the proper line or supervisory personnel.
In view of the wide range of variables that impact on
military readiness, and because the committee continues to
doubt the Department's ability to create and consistently
implement more meaningful readiness reporting criteria, in the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999 (Public
Law 105-261) Congress required that the Secretary of Defense
provide a plan to establish a more comprehensive and extensive
readiness reporting system. The committee is disappointed that
the Department has not yet complied with this requirement. As
discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee has
nonetheless continued to take constructive action to reform and
improve the Department's readiness reporting systems.
One area of particular focus for the committee over the
past several years has been the disturbing decline in quality
training at the services' combat training centers. Each of the
services informed the committee that units were arriving at
these premier training facilities less prepared, with fewer
personnel, and lower equipment readiness than in the past. Army
commanders indicated that personnel turbulence and manpower
shortfalls in their units was forcing them to arrive at the
training centers without the personnel necessary to conduct
proper training. Air Force officers stated that training
scenarios at their ``Red Flag'' exercises were being simplified
because pilots were not well enough trained to operate in the
more complicated training situations that had formerly been the
norm. Aggressor pilots and instructors also expressed their
belief that pilots were not as ready when they arrived for
training exercises as they had been just a few years ago. The
committee believes that training at the major combat training
centers should be considered premier events in a
servicemembers' training evolution.
Finally, the committee continues to believe that DOD must
take more aggressive steps to reduce costs in non-readiness
related accounts. At a time when readiness shortfalls are
growing almost exponentially, the committee does not believe
that funding for administrative and support activities, such as
headquarters management, should be increasing. Consistent with
past practice, the committee has identified spending that does
not directly support readiness and has reprioritized it into
areas that do such as combat training, depot maintenance,
aircraft spares, base operations, and real property
maintenance. In making decisions on how best to apply resources
to address readiness problems, the committee relied heavily on
lessons learned during extensive oversight hearings and on the
unfunded priorities identified by the service chiefs.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Increases
Critical Readiness Accounts Increases
Although the committee has significantly increased funding
above the President's budget request in key readiness accounts
by more than $7 billion during the past four years, readiness
continues to decline across the forces. The costs of doing more
with less continue to grow. Once again, the committee
recommends significant funding increases above the President's
budget in an effort to address the most critical unfunded
readiness requirements.
The committee's recommendations have focused on problems
highlighted throughout the extensive hearings and have been
guided by the shortfalls identified by the service chiefs.
Aircraft spare parts
Prolonged contingency air operations in Southwest Asia and
the Balkans have added significant unprogrammed flying hours to
an already aging fleet of combat aircraft and have nearly
depleted on-hand stocks of aircraft spare parts. The service
chiefs identified shortfalls in spare parts funding as one of
their highest unfunded priorities. Based on the recommendations
of the service chiefs, the committee recommends an increase of
$271.2 million, the amount contained in the unfunded priority
lists, for aircraft spare parts as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Navy.............................................................. 50.0
Air Force......................................................... 195.2
Air National Guard................................................ 26.0
Depot maintenance
Operational tempo is at an all time high and aging military
equipment is wearing out. As a consequence, the end of the
designed service life for significant elements of the services'
combat equipment is rapidly approaching and the maintenance of
the equipment is becoming more difficult, time consuming and
expensive. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$339.5 million for depot maintenance as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. 87.0
Navy (Air)........................................................ 50.0
Navy (Sea)........................................................ 25.0
Marine Corps...................................................... 20.0
Air Force......................................................... 87.0
Army National Guard............................................... 41.0
Air National Guard................................................ 29.5
Training accounts
As part of its focus on the adequacy of military training,
the committee conducted specific hearings on how effectively
the major training centers were preparing military units for
combat. The committee found that insufficient funding has been
a contributing factor in the decline in the quality of training
at these important training facilities. Shortages of equipment,
parts, decaying infrastructure, and personnel shortages were
identified as serious problems and the training equipment and
base facilities at many of the combat training centers is in
urgent need of both repair and upgrade. Due to increasing
restrictions on the availability of local station training
ranges, the committee reiterates its belief that the military
service training centers are national assets that must be
upgraded and better maintained.
Based on information gathered in committee hearings and
other training shortfalls identified by the military services,
the committee recommends an increase of $112.1 million to
improve training center operations, equipment, and facilities
as follows:
[in millions of dollars]
Army:
National Training Center Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance.. 28.0
Joint Readiness Training Center Prepositioned Equipment
Maintenance................................................. 2.0
FORSCOM Deployments to National Training Center............... 4.0
CMTC Mission Support.......................................... 4.0
Korea Training Area........................................... 4.1
Navy:
Naval Air Strike Air Warfare Center Facility Improvements..... 2.0
Marine Corps:
Air/Ground Combat Center...................................... 25.7
Air Force:
Air Warfare Center Range Support.............................. 6.1
Air Warfare Center Fiber Link................................. 4.6
Utah Test and Training Range Support.......................... 11.7
AETC Mission Essential Equipment.............................. 14.0
AETC Range Improvements....................................... 5.9
Real property maintenance and base operations support
The state of the infrastructure at nearly all military
facilities has continued to degrade to the point that the
current backlog for repair is $9.6 billion and immediate
investment must be made to at least keep the problem from
getting worse. The committee observes that current funding
levels for real property maintenance represent less than one
percent of the plant value of our military installations. At
such low funding levels, replacement of facilities will take
more than 100 years.
The committee also notes that shortfalls in base operations
accounts--accounts that are regularly used by commanders to
address shortfalls in operations and training accounts during
the fiscal year--are at or near the top of the service chiefs
unfunded priority lists.
To address the backlog of facility maintenance and
shortfalls in base operations funding, the committee recommends
an increase of $1,648.5 million, identified in the unfunded
priority lists for real property maintenance and base
operations support, as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. 517.0
Navy.............................................................. 395.5
Marine Corps...................................................... 86.0
Air Force......................................................... 529.0
Army National Guard............................................... 72.0
Navy Reserve...................................................... 43.2
Marine Corps Reserve.............................................. 1.0
Air National Guard................................................ 4.8
Miscellaneous unfunded requirements
The committee also recommends the following $758.4 million
in increased funding for unfunded readiness-related
requirements identified by the service chiefs.
[In millions of dollars]
Army:
DMOSQ/Leader Development...................................... 35.0
Information Operations........................................ 18.0
Institutional Training........................................ 70.0
Training Area Environmental Management........................ 32.0
Navy:
Ashore Force Protection....................................... 12.0
Paperless Acquisition......................................... 4.7
Marine Aviation Related Logistics............................. 35.0
Marine Aviation Related Engineering........................... 12.0
Marine Corps:
Maintenance of Aging Equipment................................ 37.2
Corrosion Control Coating..................................... 13.8
Initial Issue................................................. 20.0
Air Force:
Real Property Support......................................... 49.0
Civil Air Patrol.............................................. 7.5
NBC High Leverage Programs.................................... 18.8
C-130J Logistics.............................................. 6.1
Sustaining Engineering........................................ 95.4
ICBM Prime Contract........................................... 16.3
AC21SR Center Programs........................................ 32.7
AEF/Joint Experimentation (JFEX).............................. 35.6
Mobility CLS Contract......................................... 72.4
Army Reserve:
Army Reserve OPSTEMPO......................................... 77.0
Army National Guard:
Army National Guard OPSTEMPO.................................. 23.0
Marine Corps Reserve:
Maintenance of Aging Equipment................................ 1.5
Corrosion Control Coating..................................... 1.5
Initial Issue................................................. 10.0
Air National Guard:
F-16 Flight Training Hours.................................... 21.9
Mobility enhancement funding
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to
improve the deployment and mobility of military forces and
supplies through investment in en-route infrastructure. These
funds are provided to the United States Transportation Command
Mobility Enhancement Fund (MEF). The committee is aware that
the MEF was established to address strategic mobility
shortcomings that revealed themselves during Operation Desert
Shield/Desert Storm. The committee believes that this
additional funding will improve the ability of the military
services to respond to future contingencies.
Modern Field Kitchen Burner Unit
The committee is aware that the burner unit (M2) that
provides all heat used in the Army's field kitchens was
originally fielded in 1959. Between 1980 and 1997, 90 accidents
resulting in 65 injuries and 2 fatalities involving this unit
were reported. M2 units, which are gasoline-powered, cannot be
operated closer than 50 feet from each other and must be
installed while lit in deployed field kitchens. The committee
is also aware that the Army began replacing these burners at
the beginning of fiscal year 1999 with a modern burner unit
(MBU) that is more fuel efficient, reliable, can be ignited
after installation in deployed field kitchens, and will greatly
improve safety. It is estimated that the MBU will save over
$100,000 per 800,000 hours of use and has been operated for
over 300 hours without a failure. The committee commends the
Army for taking action to replace the unsafe, unreliable, and
costly M2 burner units; however, the committee is concerned
that funding for MBU replacements was not included in the
budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase
of $8.0 million for the Army to continue this replacement
program.
Army Cold Weather Clothing
The committee is aware that the Army and the Army National
Guard is in need of additional funding for the Extended Cold
Weather Clothing System (ECWCS), which is designed to provide
protection during cold and wet weather. The committee further
understands that the Army is equipping only 60 percent of its
forces with ECWCS and the Army National Guard is equipping only
20 percent of its forces. The committee believes that ECWCS is
a significant contributor to the combat readiness of the
individual soldier and would significantly improve their
quality of life. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of funding for ECWCS as follows:
[in millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. 19.0
Army Reserve...................................................... 14.0
Budget Request Reductions
Administration and Support Accounts
The committee notes that at the same time the budget
request contains significantly underfunded readiness accounts,
it also proposes spending increases in a number of
administrative and support accounts with little or no direct
impact on military readiness. For example, as expressed in more
detail elsewhere in this report, the committee observes that
the Department of Defense continues to not fully comply with
section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) which requires an annual
five percent reduction in all headquarters and headquarters
support activities. In addition, the committee once again
questions the necessity of funding certain programs in the
support accounts when they are more appropriately funded
elsewhere in the budget. For example, the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, a working capital fund agency, request
contains nearly $11.9 million for executive and professional
training. As it expressed last year, the committee believes
that funding for the training of working capital funded
employees should be charged against the appropriate working
capital fund and managed accordingly.
The committee disagrees with the budget request's
priorities in a number of administration and support accounts
and, therefore, recommends the following decreases:
[in millions of dollars]
Army Administration............................................... 55.0
Navy Administration............................................... 35.0
Air Force Administration.......................................... 20.0
Defense Agencies.................................................. 110.0
Advisory and Assistance Services
Consistent with the direction elsewhere in this report on
Advisory and Assistance Services, the committee recommends the
following decreases:
[in millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. 10.0
Navy.............................................................. 10.0
Air Force......................................................... 10.0
Defense Agencies.................................................. 10.0
Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions
The committee understands that in order to determine
civilian personnel requirements for the budget request, the
Department of Defense relied on the actual fiscal year 1998
personnel levels and the estimated personnel levels the
Department would have on hand at the end of fiscal year 1999,
to forecast civilian personnel levels for fiscal year 2000.
Because the Department was unable to accurately estimate the
fiscal year 1999 end strength prior to the submission of the
budget request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has
determined that the Department will employ fewer civilian
personnel at the beginning of fiscal year 2000 than it assumed
and budgeted for in the request.
Therefore, to bring the request in line with GAO's
estimated civilian endstrength levels for fiscal year 2000, the
committee recommends decreases in funding as follows:
[in millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. 5.0
Navy.............................................................. 20.0
Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises
Based on testimony, both at home and abroad, the committee
remains concerned that requirements for Joint Chiefs of Staff
(JCS) training exercises were being levied against units that
were already overextended with operational deployments, home
station training exercises and training exercises at the
services' major combat training centers. The committee
questions whether the benefit of all of these JCS exercises is
worth the price paid by units already suffering the effects of
high operational tempo. Therefore, the committee recommends a
20 percent decrease in the military services' participation in
JCS exercises as follows:
[in millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. 10.0
Navy.............................................................. 2.0
Marine Corps...................................................... 2.4
Air Force......................................................... 10.0
Special Operations Command........................................ 2.5
Joint Chief's of Staff............................................ 70.0
Other Items of Special Interest
Commercial Activity Studies
The committee endorses the Department of Defense goal of
reforming its business practices, and believes there are
numerous opportunities to improve the economy and efficiency of
the Department's business practices. However, the committee is
concerned with the assumptions and estimates of outyear savings
that the Department has reported, and indeed, included in its
budget requests. Specifically, the committee believes that the
Department has over estimated the savings that will be realized
through the A-76 commercial activity competitive process. Many
of these proposed competitions would represent the first time
that a particular business area has been subjected to the A-76
process and, therefore, automatically assuming the realization
of potential savings poses significant budget risk in a
constrained resource environment. The committee is aware that
there are numerous and difficult obstacles that must be
overcome in order to achieve anticipated savings. For instance,
studies are often delayed; studies can take 18 months to 2
years to complete; and the costs associated with civilian
transition or military conversion have not always been included
in the proposed savings. In fact, a December 1998 U.S. Army
Audit Agency report found that the delay in initiating studies
may reduce the Army's estimated gross savings by $219 million
or 14 percent. The committee notes that the budget request
contains several increases resulting from attempted
privatization efforts, where the anticipated savings failed to
materialize.
In order to better understand the Department's intentions
in this area, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report, no later than February 1, 2000, to the House
Committee on Armed Services on the current and proposed
commercial activity studies of each of the military services
and defense agencies. The report shall include:
(1) the savings identified and budgeted for each
fiscal year 1997 through 2003;
(2) the savings actually achieved in each fiscal year
1997 through 1999;
(3) the funds requested in fiscal year 2000 and 2001
for savings not achieved;
(4) an evaluation whether the anticipated and
budgeted savings can be achieved through the A-76
commercial process; and
(5) whether other methods of business reform or
reengineering will be necessary in order to achieve
anticipated and budgeted savings.
Defense Fuel Surcharges
The committee is aware that the Defense Energy Support
Center (DESC) applies an annual surcharge to the price of fuel
that is provided to the Department of Defense to be used in
establishing the fiscal year stabilized fuel price used for the
formulation of budget requests. The DESC requires the surcharge
in order to cover its annual operational costs. The General
Accounting Office has estimated that from fiscal year 1995
through 1999, the budgeted surcharge has exceeded the actual
applied surcharge by an average of $1.49 per barrel. Based on
budgeted fuel usage for fiscal year 2000, and the five year
average surcharge that has actually been applied, the budget
request for fuel may be overstated by as much as $108.8
million. The committee is aware of the volatility of fuel
prices; however, the committee finds the long standing practice
of over-budgeting for the surcharge is inappropriate. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take corrective
steps to ensure that the application of DESC surcharges is more
clearly aligned with reality.
Information Technology
Information technology has moved from a specialized support
function to becoming the central nervous system of Department
of Defense. The need for common defense-wide information
technology and seamless interoperability is evident. The
committee believes, however, that barriers to joint programs
and interoperability cannot be overcome without the unwavering
commitment from the most senior Department officials.
The committee has seen evidence of such leadership. For
example, the committee notes the personal involvement of the
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense which,
coupled with the additional funding provided by Congress to
aggressively attack the Year 2000 problem, produced an
immediate and substantial improvement in Year 2000
preparedness. The committee also notes the progress made by the
department to reduce or eliminate unnecessary or duplicative
legacy systems and urges the department to increase its efforts
to eliminate the remaining unneeded legacy systems. Despite
these positive efforts, the committee remains unconvinced that
the Department has made the necessary improvements in managing
its $26 billion Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
(C4) program. This is particularly disturbing, given the
increasing role of information technology in the battlefield of
today and tomorrow.
The committee believes that the recent top level commitment
in this area should be applied to the management of information
technology requirements of the entire Department. The committee
urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to work to overcome
efforts by the military services to develop unique information
technology systems, instead of single, joint system integrating
all logistics, medical, transportation, finance, and personnel
systems.
Environmental Issues
Alternative Technologies for Asbestos Treatment and Disposal
The committee is concerned about the cost of temporary
storage of asbestos and asbestos-contaminated materials at
Aberdeen Proving Ground and other defense facilities. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, no later than June 1, 2000, on
alternative technologies for asbestos treatment and disposal,
including non-thermal methods, that will provide
environmentally sound and cost effective treatment and disposal
options.
Environmental Contamination in Watershed Surrounding the Former Naval
Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at McGregor, Texas
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy
is studying potential environmental contamination in and around
the perimeter of the former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
Plant at McGregor, Texas. The committee encourages the
Secretary of the Navy to focus this study on the possible
presence of perchlorate in the watershed surrounding this
facility. The committee is concerned that perchlorate
contamination could affect the quality and safety of drinking
water in the area.
Navy Environmental Leadership Program
The committee continues to support the Chief of Naval
Operation's Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP), with
two designated sites one on the east coast and one on the west
coast of the United States. The primary mission of each site is
to identify and demonstrate new technologies that improve the
environmental compliance, cleanup, conservation, and pollution
prevention efforts within the Navy. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million for the Navy Environmental Leadership
Program. The committee believes these additional funds are
needed to aid the east coast site in developing technologies to
separate aqueous fire-fighting foam and other contaminants in
oily water and wastewater, reduce waste generated by the de-
painting/painting process, and reduce emissions from fire-
fighting training facilities.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues
Overview
The committee is concerned that ever tightening pressures
on the operations and maintenance budgets of the military
services are causing the Department of Defense to stray from
well established principles of support for Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation (MWR) programs. These principles include a variety
of on-base MWR programs, access to recognizable American
products, a real commissary benefit, robust appropriated fund
support to MWR programs, and a substantial exchange store
savings, especially for deployed forces. The committee
addresses many of these issues and other concerns below and
throughout this report.
Appropriated Fund Support of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs
The committee notes that the military services have not
demonstrated a serious commitment to fund Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation (MWR) programs. Although the committee has seen
incremental improvements in the percentage of appropriated fund
support provided to category A, mission sustaining programs,
these important programs are supported at the 90 percent level
by only one service, with another service as low as 70 percent.
The committee is truly dismayed by the funding provided to
category B, community support programs. Not one service has
achieved the Department of Defense goal of 65 percent
appropriated fund support for any of the past four years.
Another metric often used is the amount of appropriated fund
support provided per individual service member. Here too, the
services vary. In this era of joint operations, each service
provides support to service members of all the uniformed
services. The committee believes that individual service
members deserve to find an adequate quality of life
infrastructure wherever they may be assigned. In view of the
continued lack of commitment from all services and the
disparate level of funding among the services, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a plan for the
military services to achieve DOD funding goals and parity by
individual service member and report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
December 1, 1999, when all services will achieve those
objectives.
Combined Stores at Closed Installations
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
continues to request additional base realignment and closure
(BRAC) authority, yet the Department has done little to
ameliorate the impact of lost commissary and exchange stores on
retirees residing near closed bases. Section 336 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106) authorized the Secretary of Defense to open 10
combined exchange and commissary stores near closed bases. To
date, only three such stores are operating, even though
military retirees around the country have effectively been
denied access to commissaries and exchanges through BRAC
action. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
review the process and criteria used for establishing combined
stores, considering such matters as cost to the Defense
Commissary Agency, the viability of combined stores, and the
views of the military services, retirees, and local
communities, and report his findings and recommendations to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed
Services by January 1, 2000.
Commissary Surcharge Fund
The committee is aware that the Defense Commissary Agency's
(DECA) surcharge fund has been depleted in recent years. The
committee gives special attention to the health of this fund
because it is created with patron dollars and because it pays
for new commissary construction. With an infrastructure of
nearly 300 commissary stores around the world, DECA needs a
construction program of at least 10 new stores annually to
replace its inventory in a 30 year period. Unfortunately, the
Department projects building just 10 stores over the next 3
years. Some of the depletion of the surcharge fund is due to
DECA's own actions, such as last year's failed procurement of a
new computer system. The surcharge shortfall is a complex issue
and is also related to the significant decline of DECA's active
and reserve patron base and the addition of other charges to
DECA construction, like site demolition costs. The committee
believes that action will be needed in the near future to
address this problem and directs the Secretary of Defense to
study the issue and provide recommended solutions to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by December 1, 1999.
Military Exchange Privileges for Disabled Veterans
The committee believes that exchanges, commissaries, and
morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs are inextricably
linked elements of essential installation support. As a general
rule, military patrons who have access to exchanges have
substantially equal access to commissaries and MWR programs.
Despite that view, the committee believes that there may be
room for a limited exception to recognize veterans who were
disabled in service to their country. In that regard, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to assess the
implications of opening military exchanges to veterans who have
been rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs as at least 30
percent disabled. The committee expects that this assessment
would address such issues as the ability of these veterans to
gain access to military installations, impact on exchange costs
and revenue, and local community views. The Secretary of
Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, will report the results of this assessment to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed
Services by January 1, 2000.
Nonappropriated Fund Retirement Plans
The committee has learned that the Department of Defense
(DOD) is reviewing options concerning the several retirement
plans that exist for DOD nonappropriated fund employees. The
committee understands that DOD generated this review in order
to apply sound fiscal principles to all of the retirement plans
and realizes that the Secretary of Defense understands the
sensitivity of any changes to long established, fiscally
solvent, pension plans. Since these plans represent the only
income for thousands of currently retired nonappropriated fund
employees, the committee believes that any change should be
approached with great caution. For that reason, the committee
directs that the Secretary of Defense not implement any changes
to these retirement plans without consulting with the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed
Services.
Restrictions on Patron Access to Overseas Commissaries and Exchange
Stores
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has yet to issue regulations implementing section 365 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public
Law 105-261) dealing with ration control overseas. The
committee included this provision because the Department had
not exercised oversight in this area, resulting in authorized
patrons being denied reasonable access to American goods and
services around the world. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to publish the implementing instructions by July 1,
1999, and that the first annual report required by section 365
be provided to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 1999.
Sale of Value Brand Products in Commissary Stores
The committee notes that the Defense Commissary Agency
(DECA) is testing customer acceptance of product lines known as
value brands. The committee reminds the Secretary of Defense
that the commissary benefit is intended to provide
recognizable, brand name products to military patrons stationed
around the world. Consequently, the committee expects that any
products tested adhere strictly to the rigorous definition of
brand name products provided by section 373 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85). Since shelf space is limited in commissary stores, the
committee believes that patron selection of brand name products
would diminish if this test were expanded to place significant
quantities of value brand products into all stores.
Furthermore, the committee has concerns about the validity of
the test procedures. In view of these questions, the committee
directs that the Secretary of Defense not implement the results
of this test before consulting with the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.
Vendor Representatives Overseas
The committee has learned about apparent inconsistencies in
the logistical support provided to certain vendor
representatives overseas. The committee believes that vendor
representatives to the commissaries and exchanges perform
services critical to the mission of providing quality American
made goods to military families stationed overseas. The
committee is concerned that United States Forces, Japan (USFJ)
has changed a long standing interpretation of treaty
requirements and has directed the withdrawal of logistical
support for vendor representatives in Japan. Further, the
committee understands that USFJ has determined that other
contractor representatives should retain support. The committee
urges the Secretary of Defense to look into the matter and
restore support for vendor representatives in Japan.
Other Issues
Abrams Integrated Management Program
The budget request contains $72.6 million for the Abrams
Integrated Management XXI Program (AIM XXI), an innovative
partnership between the manufacturer of the Abrams tank (M-1)
and the Department of the Army's maintenance depot to rebuild
the early versions of these tanks (M1A1) to a ``like new''
configuration. The committee is pleased with the Army's
commitment to this vital program given that 4,300 M1A1 tanks
are expected to remain in the Army for the next 40 years. The
committee agrees with the Army's position, stated in its 1999
Armored Systems Modernization Report, that the AIM XXI program
is the foundation of a comprehensive recapitalization plan for
the Abrams tank, and believes this program will address
readiness, operation and support cost reductions, and
ultimately, modernization of the M1A1 fleet.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to continue
to fully fund this important combat vehicle modernization
program at a minimum of 90 tanks per year.
Apache Helicopter Support
The committee is concerned that the Department of the Army
is proceeding with a Prime Vendor Support (PVS) concept for the
Apache helicopter before completing a full and comprehensive
evaluation of its impact on the Army's logistics operations.
Section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) requires that, prior to
entering into any prime vendor contract for the depot-level
maintenance of a weapons system, the Secretary of Defense
provide a notification to the Congress containing, among other
things, an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed
contract. The committee continues to question whether this
concept is a cost-effective solution for improving logistics
support for the Apache helicopter.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a
comprehensive review and assessment of the Army's PVS concept
for the Apache helicopter and found significant cost and policy
uncertainties with this proposal. Preliminary findings from GAO
reveal that the Army's June 1998 cost estimate to provide PVS
for the Apache could cost approximately $430.9 million more
than the best-case government estimate. The committee is aware
that the Army is further evaluating the financial impact of the
PVC concept, but the Cost and Economic Analysis Center and the
Army Audit Agency has also raised questions regarding the cost
implications of PVS for the Apache which could be significantly
higher than the government's estimate. In addition, the
committee is concerned that the Army has not included in its
cost analysis the impact PVS would have on the Defense
Logistics Agency Working Capital Fund or the impact it would
have on the Army Working Capital Fund. The committee is also
aware that the Army is considering including in the PVS concept
enhanced services that may not be needed to meet flying-hour
mission requirements. The committee questions the addition of
non-required enhanced services in cost comparison calculations.
The committee is also concerned with operational issues
associated with the possible use of a PVS concept for the
Apache helicopter. These concerns include: whether Army
personnel in the field would be required to operate under two
separate logistics and support systems; whether this concept
would be acceptable during contingency operations; whether this
concept would be compatible with other Army financial and
supply systems; and what would be the impact to other weapons
systems that remain in the Working Capital Fund.
Based on questions of cost uncertainties and operational
issues, the committee believes it would be premature to move
forward with the PVS Apache initiative until all of these
issues are fully evaluated and resolved.
Army Battery Management Program
The committee is aware of the success of the Department of
the Army's battery management program which utilizes pulse
technology to extend the life and reduce the cost of batteries.
In particular, the committee recognizes the efforts of the Army
Forces Command which is expected to produce annual savings of
$15.0 million utilizing this new technology, and the Army III
Corps battery management program which has produced over $6.9
million in savings in a two year study program. The committee
is pleased with the Army's utilization of pulse technology as a
means to improve readiness. The committee urges the Secretary
of Defense to examine the expansion of pulse technology for
battery management programs throughout all of the military
services.
Army Maintenance and Personnel Systems
The committee continues to be concerned that the Department
of the Army lacks a total depot maintenance program for all of
its industrial operations, including a rational staffing
process. The committee is aware that the Army attempted to
develop a total depot maintenance strategic plan in its
National Maintenance Program (NMP). It is the committee's
understanding that implementation of the NMP has been delayed
because of internal confusion over the definition of depot
maintenance.
The Army's failure to implement effectively a total depot
maintenance program negatively impacts readiness and hinders
the service's overall performance in numerous arenas. First,
lack of a total maintenance program precludes the development
of the appropriate mix of equipment maintenance at public
facilities. This causes an unstable workload and staffing
system for the industrial base. In addition, without a total
depot maintenance program, the Army cannot control the
proliferation of depot activities throughout the service.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to resolve
the issues that impede the National Maintenance Program, and to
address the proliferation of depot level maintenance and
repair. The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to
continue to issue progress reports on these issues.
In addition, the committee is also concerned with problems
the Department of the Army has with the industrial staffing
requirements determination process. The committee believes that
the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) has improved
the determination process and will facilitate the development
of a stabilized workload system and minimize the turbulence in
the civilian workforce. The committee expects the Secretary of
the Army to consider the General Accounting Office's
recommendations to improve the development of AWPS. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to implement AWPS
as soon as feasible and believes the Secretary should designate
AWPS as the standard functional management system for all
industrial operations and fund the program to accomplish this
mission, including the Department of the Army Decision Support
System, by March 1, 2001.
Automatic Document Conversion Technology
The committee believes that there is potential for
significant savings from automatic document conversion software
for use in weapons systems engineering drawing digitization,
and that the Department of Defense should increase its efforts
to digitize all weapons engineering drawings. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for
engineering drawings and document storage and retrieval to be
directly managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The committee
strongly urges the Department to include funding for document
conversion technology in future budget requests.
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence--Public-Private
Partnerships
The committee is concerned that nearly two years after the
enactment of Section 2474 of Title 10, United States Code,
establishing Department of Defense Centers of Industrial and
Technical Excellence and promoting public-private partnerships,
the Secretary of Defense has failed to implement any policy
guidance in this critical area. The committee believes that
promoting public-private partnerships at the Centers of
Industrial and Technical Excellence will improve readiness,
reduce costs and help preserve critical core capabilities
within the Department. While the Department of Defense
continues to provide testimonial support for public-private
partnerships and competitions, the lack of implementing
guidelines and clear support from the Office of the Secretary
of Defense has left each of the military departments to enact a
patchwork of very different and often contradictory policies.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a written policy not later than January 1, 2000
implementing the provisions of section 2474 and provide a
report, not later than July 1, 2000, to the House Committee on
Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services
detailing the status of all activities conducted pursuant to
such policy, including any proposed pilot projects as
authorized in section 2474(a)(3).
Civilian Marksmanship Program
The committee is concerned over findings by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) concerning the management of the
Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms
Safety. The Corporation was established by title XVI of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106), which also provided for the transition of the
Civilian Marksmanship Program from the Army to the Corporation.
The committee notes that the GAO found that the Corporation's
policies were insufficient to ensure that firearms were not
sold to felons. Further, the GAO found that the Army has not
issued regulations governing logistical support to the
Corporation for the reimbursement of the Army's support of the
Corporation. The committee understands that the Corporation
revised its background check procedures as a result of GAO's
review, and has arranged for periodic independent audits of its
procedures. While the committee urges the Secretary of the Army
to issue regulations governing support procedures as required
by law, the committee is concerned that the Army will not be
reimbursed for all incremental direct costs. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review the
Army's expenses in support of the Corporation to determine if
legislative authority exists for reimbursement of costs such as
the lease of real property and storage of ammunition and
supplies, and to recommend to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services any
legislation necessary to ensure the Army receives reimbursement
for other direct costs.
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities
The Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities
(CTMA) program was created by the Department of Defense (DOD)
in 1998 and was designed to bring the most modern and advanced
manufacturing capabilities used from commercial industry in DOD
maintenance depots and related maintenance activities. CTMA
programs allow depot activities to participate in manufacturing
technology demonstration projects in collaboration with more
than 220 of the leading U.S. manufacturers, under the auspices
of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences. The CTMA
program is in direct support of section 361 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), which called on the military departments to reengineer
industrial processes and adopt best-business practices at their
depot-level activities.
The committee is aware that each CTMA project is designed
to deploy the latest technology in a particular area of the
depot, train depot personnel in its use, and then measure the
improvements in cost, time, and efficiency generated by the new
technology. Current DOD funding for the CTMA program provides
for the operational costs associated with each depot's
participation. For every DOD dollar spent, it is matched on a
2-for-1 basis by the industry partner companies. Past DOD
funding has allowed all of the military services' depot
activities to carry out their missions better, cheaper, and
faster.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has not requested funding for the CTMA program in the budget
request despite the Department's statements that the CTMA is
useful in developing commercial technologies in the depots and
that full funding for this program is a desirable goal.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0
million for the Defense Logistics Agency specifically for the
continuation of the CTMA program. The committee believes that
the continuation of this successful program would directly
contribute to increased readiness.
Communicator Automated Emergency Notification System
The Committee is pleased that various components of the
Department of Defense have begun to implement the Communicator
Automated Emergency Notification System in order to improve
current mobilization and emergency response notification
systems. This state of the art technology is replacing the
current antiquated ``phone-tree'' notification procedures and
will provide for an instantaneous and real-time massive
mobilization notification response in the event of war or any
other national emergency. The committee believes that the
Communicator Automated Emergency Notification System could be a
cornerstone for an effective U.S. mobilization notification or
emergency management notification situation, and encourages the
Secretary of Defense to examine its utility for use throughout
the Department.
Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
Recent studies conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD)
reveal that corrosion prevention costs the Department roughly
$10 billion per year. As an example, the Army's Tank and
Automotive Command found that corrosion damage annually costs
$850 per truck. The committee is concerned that the cost of
damage caused by corrosion to the Department's vehicle fleet
needs to be significantly reduced by establishing an effective
corrosion and prevention control program. Without such a
program, the military services will continue to shoulder an
unneeded economic burden which will adversely affect readiness
and equipment availability and reliability.
The committee is aware of new technologies in the
prevention of corrosion which can significantly reduce high
corrosion costs and improve readiness. The committee urges the
Department to establish specific corrosion control vehicle
service centers that could professionally apply and test all
new corrosion control technologies currently available and
provide solutions to the military departments as soon as
possible. As funding for replacement vehicles continues to be
scarce, the committee believes that all efforts must be taken
to extend the service life of existing vehicles.
Department of Defense Dependent Schools
The committee firmly believes that high quality dependent
schools are an important element of military family quality of
life. Indeed, the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-561) requires that Department of Defense
Dependent Schools (DODDS) provide ``an education of high
quality,'' and the committee recommends funding of over $1.3
billion for these schools in fiscal year 2000. Additionally,
the committee strongly supports impact aid payments to school
districts in the United States which teach large numbers of
military children, and the committee regularly supplements
these payments from Department of Defense funding. The
committee, however, was dismayed to hear testimony this year
from several sources critical of DODDS education. In view of
that testimony, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a review and assessment of the quality of the
primary and secondary schooling provided by the DODDS program.
The following factors, as well as other relevant issues, should
be included in the review and assessment: student-teacher
ratio; adequacy of size and quality of teaching staff; student
performance as measured by standardized tests and other
indicators; after school and extra-curricular activities;
availability of advanced placement programs; vocational
training opportunities; and parent satisfaction. The Secretary
should provide this report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31,
2000.
Excess Military Property for Law Enforcement Agencies
The committee is aware that not all excess military
property is available for transfer to law enforcement agencies
under the program established in section 2576a of title 10,
United States Code. Specifically, materials that have been
requested by law enforcement agencies which are intended to
enhance the training and safety of law enforcement officers
have been denied because they were considered construction
materials. The committee notes that section 2576a requires the
Secretary of Defense to determine if materials under this
program are suitable for use by the agencies in law enforcement
activities. However, the committee believes that the Department
should consider materials that would improve training and
safety for transfer under this program. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to modify its policy regarding the types
of equipment and materials made available in so far as they
meet reasonable guidelines set forth in section 2576a. Further,
the committee urges the Department to make every effort to
satisfy requests for materials intended to improve the training
and safety programs of law enforcement agencies directly
related to the support of law enforcement activities.
Home Schooled Children Overseas
The committee believes that military families who decide to
home school their children should be supported by Department of
Defense Overseas Schools (DODDS) to the extent possible. While
the committee agrees that a commander's responsibility to
manage an overseas community and a family's obligation to
observe host nation laws render home schooling overseas more
challenging than when conducted in the United States, the
committee supports responsible school choice for military
families. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
Education Activity (DODEA) claims that it fully supports home
schooling. DODEA's published material and the actual experience
of some parents belie that claim, however. The committee
believes that DODEA should take a more proactive approach in
establishing a clear policy and providing parents information
about available DODEA support for home schooling overseas,
rather than merely directing parents to the overseas commander.
To that end, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
develop clear policy on support for home schooling overseas.
That policy, which would officially implement what DODEA
representatives state is actual practice, should specify that
home schooled students may be supported with library services,
music, sports, single classes, and other programs without
having to actually enroll in DODDS. The committee directs the
Secretary to provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services with the new policy
directive by October 1, 1999.
Information Systems Security Education
The increasing dependence by the Department of Defense on
computers and computer communications has also increased the
vulnerability of 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.
Joint Warfare Analysis Center
The committee is aware that the Joint Warfare Analysis
Center (JWAC), a subordinate to the Commander in Chief,
Atlantic Command, is currently underfunded in the budget
request due to a significant increase in its currently assigned
workload. The JWAC, which assess effects of targeting, and
provides planning support to the Joint Staff and all Unified
Commanders, has nearly doubled its workload due to new,
conventional warfare taskings, not envisioned in the original
charter for special access programs. The committee is concerned
that the present employees assigned to JWAC may be on the verge
of early burnout primarily because of a shortage of highly
skilled technical employees. Increases in manpower have been
caused by the military services growing involvement in
contingency operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for the JWAC and urges the Secretary of Defense to
adequately fund this important activity in the future. The
committee expects the Secretary of the Navy, who is the
executive agent for resources for this activity, to allocate
these additional funds in the appropriate accounts within the
JWAC.
Military Affiliate Radio System
The committee reiterates its prior support for the Military
Affiliate Radio System (MARS) and the civilian amateur radio
operators who provide the Department of Defense (DOD) with an
auxiliary means of communications in the event of a local,
national, or international emergency. However, the committee is
concerned that the benefits of this volunteer communications
service are not fully appreciated or utilized by the
Department.
In its December 31, 1996 report to the committee on the
MARS program, the Secretary of Defense emphasized, ``there is
no requirement for a change in the MARS mission.'' Although its
main mission is to provide emergency communications support,
MARS has been a valuable system for relaying morale and welfare
messages between U.S. service personnel stationed abroad and
their families in the United States. This system has operated
at virtually no cost to the Department. As the number, scope,
and pace of contingency operations in which the United States
participates--including peacekeeping operations--continues to
grow, the committee encourages the Department to support, where
feasible, the deployment of a MARS capability to contingency
theaters in order to provide an auxiliary communications means
for the use of service personnel. In light of reports that DOD
communications networks in Europe are being augmented and
improved in connection with the U.S. and NATO military campaign
against Yugoslavia, the committee believes that MARS can play
an important role in support of the military and humanitarian
operations being conducted in support of this mission.
The committee is aware of other existing communications
arrangements--including the Defense Switching Network, Mobile
Subscriber Equipment, commercial carriers, and e-mail--which
have been made available to U.S. troops for morale traffic
purposes during limited periods of time. However, the committee
notes that these alternate systems may not always be available
and may result in out-of-pocket costs to the users. The
committee also encourages the Department to make greater
efforts to inform U.S. military personnel of the availability
of the MARS service.
Tugboat Operations
The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's
initiative to outsource its tugboat capability. The Committee
is also aware that private contractors who perform the tugboat
mission in peacetime must agree that if they are unwilling to
perform this mission during times of emergency, they must
relinquish command and control of their tugboats to the
Department of Defense to permit the Department to respond to
the emergency situation. The Committee directs the Secretary of
the Navy to provide to the House Committee on Armed Services,
by February 1, 2000, an assessment of the Department of the
Navy's current capability and plan to provide fully trained and
qualified military personnel to operate contractor vessels if
required.
Urban Warfare Training
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
and the military services are not placing sufficient emphasis
on urban warfare training, and believes that recent military
operations and deployments to Somalia and Bosnia underscore the
need to increase training in urban environments. Over the
years, battles across the world have moved from open fields and
jungles to city streets and urban areas. As this trend
continues, the need for a comprehensive training plan and
dedicated operations funding to implement urban training
becomes more important. The committee believes that U.S.
military forces must be prepared to fight all challenges in the
future. Meeting that goal requires dedicated planning and
operational funding for urban warfare training.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by
January 31, 2000, on the current and proposed efforts to
provide urban warfare training for military personnel.
Specifically, the report shall include:
(1) Current and proposed plans to provide urban
warfare training in each of the military services;
(2) Current capabilities available to train personnel
to fight in urban environments; and
(3) Proposed operations funding required to conduct
urban warfare training and the priority given to this
training within the DOD Five Year Budget plan.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize $1,056.4 million in operations
and maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense.
Section 302--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize $525.0 million for Working
Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would authorize $68.295 million from the Armed
Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer not more than $150.0 million from the amounts received
from sales in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military
services.
Section 305--Transfer to Defense Working Capital Funds to Support
Defense Commissary Agency
This section would transfer funding for the Defense
Commissary Agency (DECA) from the military services' operations
and maintenance accounts into the Defense Working Capital Fund.
The committee reminds the Secretary of Defense that section 361
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105-261) requires that DECA be funded through the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and not through the military
services. The budget request proposed to return the funding of
DECA to the military services, without supporting rationale or
request for legislative relief. The committee notes that
intense competition for operations and maintenance funding
throughout the military services could jeopardize the
commissary benefit if the funding were left in the military
service accounts and insists that the Secretary of Defense fund
DECA through Defense wide accounts as required by law.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 311--Reimbursement of Navy Exchange Service Command for
Relocation Expenses
This section would authorize $8.7 million for reimbursement
to the Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) for costs
incurred in connection with the relocation of NEXCOM
headquarters to Virginia Beach, Virginia, and for the lease of
headquarters space.
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions
Section 321--Remediation of Asbestos and Lead Based Paint
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to use
Army Corps of Engineers indefinite delivery, indefinite
quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the remediation of asbestos
material and lead based paint. The committee is concerned that
the Department of Defense's current process of asbestos and
lead paint abatement is wasting scarce readiness funds. The
Department is not utilizing existing and competitively awarded
Army Corps of Engineers IDIQ contracts to cover such work.
Instead, the Department regularly issues contract change orders
to cover unanticipated remediation problems, paying
significantly higher rates.
Subtitle D--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources
Section 331--Expansion of Annual Report on Contracting for Commercial
and Industrial Type Functions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide Congress with a report on the number of work-year
equivalents performed by private sector employees who provide
services under contract to the Department of Defense, as well
as the total dollar value of these services. The section would
also require the Department to categorize the information to be
included in the report by federal supply class or service code,
the appropriation from which the contracts for the services
were funded, and the major organizational element of the
military department acquiring the services.
Section 332--Congressional Notification of A-76 Cost Comparison Waivers
This section would require the Department of Defense or any
of the military services to notify Congress when the procedure
set forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-
76 for commercial activities is waived. The committee is aware
that the Department and the military services may grant waivers
to the procedures of OMB Circular A-76 for commercial
activities. Although current law does not require that an A-76
study be performed, the committee believes that the Congress
should be notified when the Department or the military services
waive this procedure.
Section 333--Improved Evaluation of Local Economic Effect of Changing
Defense Functions to Private Sector Performance
This section would change the requirement for the
Department of Defense to provide the Congress with an analysis
of the impact of converting a government-performed function to
a contractor-performed function if more than 50 DOD employees
would be involved, rather than the current requirement of 75
employees. As the Department analyzes whether to convert a
government performed function to a contractor performed
function, the committee believes that it is important to
understand the effect the change will have on the local economy
and community.
Section 334--Annual Report on Expenditures for Performance of Depot-
Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads by Public and Private Sectors
This section would amend section 2466(e)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, to expand the amount of information
currently provided to Congress detailing the amount of depot-
level maintenance and repair work that is accomplished in the
public and the private sector.
Section 335--Applicability of Competition Requirement in Contracting
Out Workloads Performed by Depot-Level Activities of Department of
Defense
This section would amend section 2469(b) of title 10,
United States Code, in order to clarify that the cost of labor
and materials is to be used when determining the value of
workload that would require a competition if it were to be
moved from a public depot.
Section 336--Treatment of Public Sector Winning Bidders for Contracts
for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads
Formerly Performed at Certain Military Installations
This section would amend section 2469(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to reduce reporting requirements and
management at Department of Defense industrial facilities which
are performing work awarded under a public-private competition.
Section 337--Process for Modernization of Computer Systems at Army
Computer Centers
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
provide the Department of Defense civilian employees at the
Logistics Systems Support Center, St. Louis, Missouri, and the
Industrial Logistics Systems Center in Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania, with the opportunity to establish a most
efficient organization for the purpose of establishing a
partnership with a private sector entity selected to develop
and implement new computer systems at these locations. The
purpose of this most efficient organization would be to ensure
that the current computer systems remain operational to meet
the needs of the Army until replacement computer systems are
fully operational and successfully evaluated.
Section 338--Evaluation of Total System Performance Responsibility
Program
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to provide a report to Congress that would identify all Air
Force programs that are currently managed or presently planned
to be managed under the Total System Performance Responsibility
Program (TSPR). The TSPR program is an emerging Air Force
acquisition and support strategy designed to place increased
responsibility, accountability, and authority for the
performance of a specific weapons system or equipment item in
the hands of a single manager. In addition, the report would
include a determination whether or not the TSPR program would
support core maintenance capabilities.
The committee is concerned that the Air Force has chosen an
ill-defined and unclear policy to support important weapons
systems. While the TSPR program intends to streamline and
comprehensively integrate the sustainment responsibility for
weapons systems, the committee is concerned that this
sustainment concept has not sufficiently taken into account the
long-term implications for privatizing the sustainment support
for major weapons systems or the implication on the readiness
and war fighting capabilities of the Air Force.
Section 339--Identification of Core Logistics Capability Requirements
for Maintenance and Repair of C-17 Aircraft
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to submit a report, not later than February 1, 2000, to
Congress that would identify the core logistics capability
requirements for depot-level maintenance and repair for the C-
17 aircraft. The section would preclude the Secretary of the
Air Force from extending the contract for the C-17 aircraft
Flexible Sustainment Program until 60 days after the report is
received by Congress. In addition, the provision would require
the General Accounting Office to review the report once it is
submitted and report to Congress with an evaluation of the
report and other related issues.
The committee continues to believe that maintaining an in-
house depot maintenance capability is critical for mission
essential systems and for other maintenance where it is shown
to be more cost effective. Section 351 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261)
required the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan detailing
the core logistics capabilities of the C-17 aircraft. The
committee believes that the report submitted by the Department
did not adequately respond to the requirements of section 351.
The Department of the Air Force has stated that the core
requirements for the C-17 aircraft will not be considered until
2002, 8 years after the C-17, a key mission essential unique
aircraft, achieves initial operational capability. The
committee notes that section 2464 of title 10, United States
Code, requires that the core logistics capabilities for mission
essential weapons systems are to be established not later than
four years after a weapons systems achieving initial
operational capability.
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education
Section 341--Assistance to Local Education Agencies That Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees
This section would authorize $35.0 million for educational
assistance to local education agencies where the standard for
the minimum level of education within the state could not be
maintained because of the large number of military connected
students. This section would also modify the procedures used to
distribute funds to local education agencies in order to speed
a process much delayed by legal and policy impediments. The
operation of current policy, which is intended to ensure less
prosperous local education agencies receive their fair share of
these funds, actually causes these districts to receive less
funding than intended. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to review the policy by which funds are distributed to
local education agencies and make adjustments necessary to
ensure that funds are distributed equitably and expeditiously.
The committee's commitment to military children has provided
much needed boosts to the education of military children around
the country. Even so, the committee notes that the Department
of Education impact aid program provides supplementary funds to
eligible school districts nationwide, and believes that the
Department of Education bears the principal responsibility for
providing support for the education needs of the nation's
children.
Section 342--Continuation of Enrollment at Department of Defense
Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools
This section would permit a student who is enrolled in his
or her junior year at a Department of Defense domestic
secondary school to complete the student's senior year at that
same school even if the student would be otherwise ineligible
to attend the school because of a change in the status of the
student's sponsor. With few exceptions, students whose sponsors
move away from the installation or complete their military or
civilian service cannot remain in a Department of Defense
domestic school for completion of their senior year. This
provision would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority
to make exceptions for the completion of high school. The
committee notes that the Secretary would retain the authority
to disenroll these students for good cause, and would expect
that students completing their high school career separated
from their parents under this provision would remain
productive, disciplined members of their respective senior
classes.
Section 343--Technical Amendments to Defense Dependents' Education Act
of 1978
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments to the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978
(title XIV of Public Law 95-561).
Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues
Section 351--Independent Study of Department of Defense Secondary
Inventory and Parts Shortages
Since 1990, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has
identified the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of
secondary inventories as a high-risk area because levels of
inventory are too high and management systems and procedures
are ineffective. GAO has also reported that: approximately 60
percent of the Department's inventory exceeds current
requirements the accuracy of inventory requirements is
questionable; the Department lacks adequate visibility over
operating materials and supplies; and the Department has been
slow in adopting best management practices in this area. In
response to GAO reports, the Department has asserted that much
of its current inventory is needed to support operations or
that it is economically prudent to retain in stock.
In testimony before the committee, the military departments
testified that due to a lack of funding, in part, significant
spare part shortages exist and continue to have a negative
impact on readiness. The committee is concerned that the cost
to store large quantities of old and inactive secondary supply
items limits funding that could be used to purchase parts that
would improve readiness by reducing maintenance times and
increasing mission capable rates. The committee believes that
an analysis of the Department's secondary inventory and parts
shortages should be conducted to identify the actual causes and
the extent of parts shortages, as well as to determine the
impact on current readiness.
Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to provide for an independent analysis of current
secondary inventory levels, including wholesale and retail
inventories. This analysis should determine how much of DOD
inventory, retained for economic, contingency, and potential
reutilization over the past five years, has actually been used,
and how much should be classified as excess to the Department's
needs. The analysis would also include recommendations that the
Department should consider for the disposal or other
disposition of excess inventory. This section would also
require the Secretary of Defense to review the results of the
independent analysis and provide to the Congress an assessment
of the analysis. In addition, the Secretary of Defense would be
required to provide to the Congress a plan that would address:
(1) The elimination of excess inventory;
(2) The issues of inactive inventory;
(3) Chronic part shortages; and
(4) Recommendations for improvement to the
department-wide inventory management system.
Section 352--Independent Study of Adequacy of Department Restructured
Sustainment and Reengineered Logistics Product Support Practices
Based on extensive testimony received and from visits to
the field, the committee is aware of severe and chronic spare
parts shortages in all services. For instance, the Air Force
has testified that fighter squadrons are deploying with less
than 50 percent of the deployment parts needed to sustain
themselves. Repair parts stocks are at extremely low levels
throughout the military services. The committee understands
that the ability of U.S. forces to successfully conduct a
large, focused air campaign and other relatively small
contingency type operations, actually masks the difficulty of
sustaining a force capable of fighting two major regional
contingencies. The committee has heard from the military
services that they are increasingly resorting to
cannibalization of equipment for repair parts to sustain
ongoing operations, which increases costs in terms of equipment
and manpower. Based on testimony by the service chief's
concerning their current and future unfunded requirements, and
the current high pace of military contingency operations, the
committee is concerned that national emergency sustainment
stocks may not currently exist, and there may not be sufficient
funding in the future years defense budget projections for
sufficient stocks to be purchased.
The committee understands that the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) currently has funding authority sufficient to meet only
85 percent of expected yearly requisitions. This equates to
nearly 300,000 requisitions each year being refused or placed
on ``back order'' until funding is provided. During a time of
national emergency, it is expected that parts will be made
available when it comes time to mobilize. Based in part by the
current high use of parts due to contingency operations in the
Balkans, particularly aviation parts, the committee has little
confidence that there will be sufficient stocks of parts and
supplies to support the necessary mobilization for one major
theater war much less the two required by the National Military
Strategy.
Department of Defense agencies and the service components
are all working hard to use better business practices to
sustain logistical support to operational units. The committee
commends these efforts to cut costs and become more efficient
but has concerns that these practices are driven by funding
constraints without adequate consideration of the operational
units' needs during war.
Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to provide for an independent study of the Department's
current efforts to restructure sustainment of required
inventory and the impact these efforts will have on the
logistics community's ability to provide adequate logistical
support during the conduct of two major theater wars.
Section 353--Independent Study of Military Readiness Reporting System
This section would provide for an independent study of
requirements for a comprehensive readiness reporting system for
the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense was
directed to establish such a system by section 117 of title 10,
United States Code, as added by section 373 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261). The committee is concerned by the Department of Defense's
delays in implementing provisions of the law, and believes that
there is a need for an independent study to provide a benchmark
against which to measure the Department of Defense's efforts at
reform of the readiness reporting system.
As indicators of declining readiness increase, the urgency
for an improved readiness reporting system, capable of
measuring the complex variety of factors that influence unit
readiness, also has increased. In fact, even had the Department
of Defense implemented the provisions of the law in a timely
way, the committee believes an independent assessment of the
requirements for such a readiness reporting system is
warranted. The committee has been discouraged to learn that
bureaucratic intransigence, opposition to reform, and the
persistence of outmoded practices are placing the prospects for
improving the readiness reporting system in doubt.
Section 354--Review of Real Property Maintenance and its Effect on
Readiness
Based on testimony received by the committee, reports from
the field, and other information provided, the committee is
concerned that the backlog of real property maintenance has
continued to grow with no apparent overall strategic plan for
its elimination in the foreseeable future. The committee is
encouraged that the Administration and the military service
chiefs finally admit that there is a problem and recognize the
need to stop the growth in the maintenance backlog. However,
the additional funding included in the budget request would
only stop the backlog from increasing but would not reduce the
real property maintenance backlog.
This section would require the Department of Defense to
assess what the impact of the continued lack of adequate
funding for real property maintenance in all of the military
services is having on readiness. The assessment should
determine the funding required, by service, to eliminate the
real property maintenance backlog, and to improve facilities to
acceptable standards for optimum utilization to support
readiness and quality of life requirements.
Section 355--Establishment of Logistics Standards for Sustained
Military Operations
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish standards for spare parts and other logistics needs
of deployable units of the armed forces in order to allow these
units to sustain themselves adequately in performing their
assigned missions. This section would further direct the
Secretary of Defense to consider these standards when
establishing the Department of Defense's budget, with the
expectation that these standards will be considered as the
minimum requirement for spare parts. Finally, the Secretary of
Defense would be directed to include an analysis of the
logistics and sustainment requirements of the armed forces in
his annual report to the Congress.
The committee believes these measures are essential to
improving the sustainment capabilities needed to execute the
missions assigned to the armed forces under the National
Military Strategy. Through its hearings and oversight
activities, the committee learned that many units lack the
spare parts and other logistics equipment required to conduct
sustained operations, including the combat missions assigned to
these units by the theater commanders-in-chiefs in their war
plans. In some cases, units currently expected to sustain
themselves in a combat environment, under austere conditions,
are reporting an inability to fully perform their assigned
missions beyond a week to 10 days rather than the expected 30
days.
Absent a realistic reevaluation of the support standards
required of units--matched by a sufficient level of funding for
spare parts and similar needs--in the current strategic
environment, the inability to adequately sustain deploying
units in contingency and combat operations may prove to be a
serious shortcoming for U.S. armed forces. The committee
believes the Secretary of Defense must move rapidly to
establish sustainment standards, provide sufficient funding to
eliminate sustainment shortfalls, and quantify and highlight
these standards in the annual report to the Congress.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 361--Discretionary Authority to Install Telecommunication
Equipment for Persons Performing Voluntary Services
This section would provide the service secretaries with the
authority to install telephone lines and necessary
telecommunication equipment in the private residences of unit
volunteer coordinators and pay usage fees. Currently, no such
authority exists in law. Although the committee expects that
service secretaries would exercise this authority sparingly and
would apply appropriate control measures on the use of this
equipment, the committee recognizes that selected volunteers
have become critical links to maintaining communication between
families and deployed units and vessels.
Section 362--Contracting Authority for Defense Working Capital Funded
Industrial Facilities
This section would amend section 2208(j) of title 10,
United States Code, to clarify the requirements for working
capital funded industrial facilities to manufacture articles
and sell these articles to persons outside the Department of
Defense.
Section 363--Clarification of Condition on Sale of Articles and
Services of Industrial Facilities to Persons Outside Department of
Defense
This section would amend section 2553(g) of title 10,
United States Code, to define the term ``not available'' with
respect to goods or services sold by Department of Defense
industrial facilities.
Section 364--Special Authority of Disbursing Officials Regarding
Automated Teller Machines on Naval Vessels
This section would amend section 3342 of title 31, United
States Code, relating to disbursing officials check cashing
authority to allow the Department of Defense to provide
operating funds to automated teller machines (ATM) on naval
vessels, and to accept for safekeeping deposits made through
these ATMs to shipboard accounts. The provision supports the
Department of the Navy's ``ATM-On-Line'' and ``ATMs-At-Sea''
programs which will result in a significant quality of life
enhancement for service members serving on navel vessels.
The committee believes that the Secretary of the Navy
should evaluate the most efficient means to maintain and update
the automated teller machines (ATM) necessary for the ATM-at-
Sea program. This includes considering whether the banking
industry, which benefits from this program, should pay a
portion of the funds needed to maintain and update the needed
ATMs on the Naval vessels.
Section 365--Preservation of Historic Buildings and Grounds at United
States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, District of Columbia
This section would permit the Chairman of the Retirement
Home Board and the Director of the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home to apply and accept a direct grant from the
Secretary of the Interior under section 101(e)(3) of the
National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code
470a(e)(3)) for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, and
preserving the historic buildings and grounds of the United
States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home included on the National
Register of Historic Places. The committee is aware that four
buildings located on six acres at the Soldiers' and Airmen's
Retirement Home in Washington, D.C. are included on the
National Register of Historic places. Currently, amounts in the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund, which consists
primarily of deductions from the pay of members of the armed
forces, are insufficient to maintain, repair, and preserve
these historic buildings and grounds.
Section 366--Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority, United States
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
This section would clarify section 1053 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201), concerning the authorization for the United States
Soldiers' and Airman's Home, located in the District of
Columbia, to sell approximately 49 acres of excess land. The
section would establish the specific manner, terms and
conditions for the conveyance of this land by sale or lease
within 12 months of enactment of the provision. The section
would also preclude the conveyance of this excess property
through any public/private partnership, and would give the
Catholic University of America, located adjacent to the excess
land in the District of Columbia, the right to match any bona
fide offer received for the sale or lease of the property.
Section 367--Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in Defense Household
Goods Moving Programs
This section would exclude the states of Alaska and Hawaii,
and the territory of Guam from being included as points of
origin in any test or demonstration program of the Department
of Defense (DOD) regarding the moving of household goods of
members of the armed forces. The provision would also establish
Hawaii and Guam as international destinations for the purpose
of household goods shipments by the DOD.
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
In mid-1998, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the Joint Chiefs concluded that the Armed Forces were fighting,
and losing, two-front war to recruit and retain sufficient
people. That war continues today, and much of what is provided
for in the military personnel titles of this bill is directed
at reversing the losing fight.
On the retention front, all the services for several years
have incurred unsustainable losses among pockets of highly
qualified, experienced personnel. More recently, the most
severe retention problems are in the Navy and the Air Force
where officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted persons
across the force are leaving at rates that threaten the future
viability of each service. In the Army and Marine Corps,
although retention problems remain localized--principally among
pilots--they are, nonetheless, of concern. Adding to the
debilitating effects of the unanticipated losses of experienced
personnel, the Army, Navy and Air Force also are encountering
sharp increases above historical levels in the attrition of new
personnel who fail to complete their first term of enlistment.
As threatening as are the downward retention rates and
increased attrition, military leaders within each of the
services are even more concerned about their inability to
develop responses to effectively reverse the trends. For
example, no matter what the Air Force has tried, unacceptable
pilot retention rates continue.
On the recruiting front, three of the services, beginning
with the Army, then the Navy, and finally the Air Force, have
failed, or expect to fail, to meet production goals for new
recruits. Not only do these recruiting shortfalls exist among
most of the active components, but they also are appearing
among the reserve components--most notably in the Army and
Naval Reserves. In addition, some sources of officer
commissions, specifically Army and Air Force Senior Reserve
Officer Training (ROTC) programs, are failing to produce the
required numbers of new officers. Furthermore, despite
compelling testimony from mid-grade enlisted leaders that the
low quality of new recruits has already reached a level that
threatens the readiness of the force, the civilian leadership
within the services refuse to commit adequate resources to
recruiting. Rather, the Army and the Navy moved to reduce their
quality standards by enlisting fewer high school graduates; and
some services continue to surface new strategies for reducing
recruit quality. These trends alarm the committee.
As a result of continuing recruiting shortfalls and reduced
retention, senior military leaders find themselves compelled to
deploy forces to crises and contingencies at manning levels
well below the 100 percent or better standard that heretofore
had been their goal. With reduced manning levels among deployed
forces, senior leaders are reluctantly accepting higher
operational risks, reduced readiness, and increased stress on
both deployed and non-deployed forces.
Reflecting the December 1998 commitment of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Secretary of Defense to address the retention
and recruiting problems in the services, the Budget request
proposed a range of pay and retirement reforms, as well as new
bonus and special pays authority, and increased funding for
recruiting. The committee commends the Secretary and the Joint
Chiefs for their forceful, public resolve to advocate for these
reforms and initiatives. The Committee is convinced that
without the unanimous support of these initiatives by the Joint
Chiefs and the Secretary, they would not have been included in
the budget request, nor politically supported by the Congress.
Using the pay and retirement reforms of the budget request
as a starting point, the committee undertook an in-depth
assessment of the underlying causes of the services' retention
and recruiting problems in an effort to determine the adequacy
of the Department's budget proposals.
With regard to retention the committee found numerous and
complex factors that determined why people and their families
either remain in the military or return to civilian life.
Clearly, as emphasized by the proposed Department of Defense's
pay and retirement reforms, dissatisfaction with military basic
pay and retirement was found to be a factor influencing
retention. However, the committee also found that the
Department's proposals addressed only a narrow range of the
actual pay and compensation concerns of service members. Based
on what men and women, officer and enlisted, told the
committee, further reforms were needed to help relieve the
financial stress experienced by most enlisted personnel with
families. Some flexibility and choice in retirement options was
desired, including the option to participate in a thrift
savings plan. They also sought improvements in their ability to
afford adequate housing and to reduce out-of-pocket housing
costs. Finally, service members' testimony made clear to the
committee that enhanced bonus and special pays were a critical
factor for many military personnel, not only as recognition of
their training and skills, but also as a way to reduce the
attractiveness of salary and bonus offers being made to them by
civilian employers.
Notwithstanding the testimony the committee heard about the
need for pay, compensation and retirement reform that was
broader, more diverse, and more focused than that contained in
the budget request, the committee also understood from that
testimony that if the services were going to solve their
retention problems, then a broad range of reforms outside those
of military pay and compensation and retirement would also be
required. For example, the committee repeatedly heard about the
damaging impact on retention caused by unrelieved high
operations tempo and the tension and disruptions to families
resulting from the unpredictability of no-notice, last minute
deployments. Equally damaging to retention was the corrosive
effect on a highly professional military due to their
inability, and the inability of their leaders to obtain the
required resource to train and maintain themselves, their
equipment and their units at a level of readiness they know is
required to be successful in war. Such frustration, the result,
in part, of significantly underfunded operations and
maintenance accounts, will not be relieved by any amount of
increased spending in the military personnel accounts.
With regard to the recruiting proposals contained in the
budget request, the committee's assessment found an increased
level of effort being made by each service to achieve
recruiting goals. In general, the committee is pleased with the
effort. However, given the current and growing
interdependability of the active and reserve components, the
committee is concerned that the budget request did nothing to
address the recruiting shortfalls in some of the reserve
components. The budget request neither did anything to correct
the officer production shortfalls in the Senior Reserve Officer
Training Program nor did it provide new ways to address manning
shortfalls that exist in all the services.
Based on its in-depth assessment, the committee recommends
a broad range of initiatives to address the retention and
recruiting issues that are confronting the military services.
These initiatives, which build upon and expand those proposed
in the budget request, are reported in detail in the military
personnel titles below. In summary, however, the committee
recommendations contained in the military personnel titles:
(1) Directly and aggressively address many of the
causes of recruiting and retention shortfalls, but
balance the cost of addressing those problems against
the reality that pay and retirement reform are only a
part of what is required to improve recruiting and
retention. Resources, in a constrained defense budget,
must remain available this year and in subsequent years
to address readiness and modernization, which also are
keys to fixing recruiting and retention.
(2) Provide a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise,
compared to the 4.4 per cent raise in the budget
request; halt the growing pay gap for all by mandating
that future basic pay raises are based on the full
employment cost index (ECI), not ECI minus .5 percent;
and provide targeted pay raises above 4.8 percent for
mid-grade officers and non-commissioned officers, as
part of a reform of the pay tables to ensure pay
increases are tied more to promotion than to years of
service.
(3) Reform the military retirement system by
providing service members the option of choosing either
the pre-1986 retirement, or remain in the post-1986
retirement system and receive a $30,000 payment at 15
years of service.
(4) Extend current pay and bonus authorities, create
new bonus authorities, and expand recruiting and
retention bonus and special pay authorities to address
poor retention and shortages in specific skills. These
skills include aviators, Navy surface warfare officers,
Navy special warfare officers, Navy nuclear trained
officers, reserve components critical skills, Air Force
air battle managers, career enlisted flyers, linguists,
divers, first-team members with families, and judge
advocates.
(5) Reduce service member out-of-pocket housing costs
by 3 per cent, and accelerate by three years the full
implementation of new Basic Allowance for Housing
rates, by adding $442.5 million to the services'
military personnel accounts.
(6) Direct the Secretary of Defense to begin paying
the Women, Infants and children (WIC) program benefits
overseas.
(7) Maintain active end strength floors; provide
$91.5 million to fully fund the Army National Guard and
Army Reserve military technicians requested in the
budget; and increase by 800 the full time manning in
the Army National Guard,
(8) Provide creative new ways to address the
services' manning shortfalls by expanding the number of
military retirees who can voluntarily return to active
duty; authorizing the Air Force to test the use of
voluntarily recalled retirees in critical staff
positions, thereby returning aviators to flying duties;
and delegating to the Secretary of Defense authority to
waive, on a case-by-case basis, the requirement that
military retirees forfeit a portion of their retired
pay when re-employed in the Department of Defense.
(9) Eliminate the services' recruiting resource
shortfalls by adding nearly $200 million to the budget
request for both active and reserve component needs,
and encourage state and local officials to provide
military recruiters the same access to high school
students that is provided to other prospective
employers.
(10) Address the officer recruiting shortfall by
adding nearly $24.0 million to the Army Senior Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) funding, and increasing
the monthly subsistence allowance paid to Senior ROTC
cadets of all services from $150 to $200.
(12) Modify the framework for training and
integrating reservists into the active force by
providing adequate per diem to military technicians
supporting contingency operations, authorizing recalled
reservists to continue to hold civil offices for a full
active duty tour, authorizing unit funding of housing
during training tours, adding new options for active
duty medical care for reservists, and authorizing
reservists priority transportation when transportation
options are limited.
(13) Attend to key retiree and veterans issues by
guaranteeing veterans' burial benefits, providing
retirement flags for reservists and all the uniformed
services, restoring equity to widows entitlements, and
directing that the Secretary of Defense pay severely
disabled military retirees a monthly stipend to offset
reductions in military retired pay.
(14) Continue the reform of Department of Defense
pharmacy system.
The committee believes that these and other initiatives it
is recommending will help to address the severe retention and
recruiting challenges facing the military services. The
committee also believes, however, that the severe retention and
recruiting problems of the military services will not be solved
by a one year's effort. Rather, several years effort, at least,
will be needed to restore the manpower readiness of the armed
services. Therefore, the committee strongly urges the senior
military and civilian leadership of the Department of Defense
to continue to advocate for the additional resources to sustain
and win the two-front war of retention and recruiting. To that
end, the committee pledges its support.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September
30, 2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 FY 2000
Service authorized and FY 2000 committee Change from FY
floor request recommendation 2000 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................................ 480,000 480,000 480,000 0
Navy............................................ 372,696 371,781 372,037 256
USMC............................................ 172,200 172,148 172,518 370
USAF............................................ 370,882 360,877 360,877 0
DOD............................................. 1,395,778 1,384,806 1,385,432 626
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a critical unfunded requirement identified by the
Chief of Naval Operations, the committee recommends an increase
of $5.0 million and 256 personnel over the requested end
strength for the Navy. This additional funding and strength
would preclude anticipated undermanning in naval underway
replenishment ships. The committee also recommends an increase
of 370 over the requested end strength of the United States
Marine Corps to meet an unfunded need identified by the
Commandant of the Marine Corps for additional guards at U.S.
embassies. To support the increased manpower, the committee
recommends an additional $6.6 million for the Marine Corps
personnel account, and an additional $4.1 million for the
Marine Corps operations and maintenance account.
Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels
The committee believes that it remains necessary to retain
end strength floors, not only because of a long-standing
concern, reinforced by widespread testimony of witnesses
appearing before the committee that forces are inadequate to
support the national military strategy, but also because of the
propensity of the services to accelerate manpower reductions to
achieve savings, regardless of the actual manning requirements
of the operational forces. This section, therefore, would amend
section 691 of title 10, United States Code, to establish end
strength floors for the active forces at the end strengths
contained in the budget request.
In addition, the committee is disturbed to learn that the
Army and Air Force are projected to end fiscal year 1999 with
nearly 11,500 personnel less than required by the floor
established by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261). In the case of the Air
Force, the shortfall will significantly exceed the statutory
flexibility. These shortfalls are illustrated below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 Projected
--------------------------------------- actual FY Change from
Service Authorized Floor with 1999 end FY 1999
DOD request and floor flex strength floor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................... 480,000 480,000 477,600 478,050 -1,950
Navy........................................... 372,696 372,696 370,883 372,700 +4
USMC........................................... 172,200 172,200 171,339 172,200 0
USAF........................................... 370,882 370,882 369,028 361,331 -9,551
DOD............................................ 1,395,778 1,395,778 1,388,850 1,384,281 -11,497
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These projected shortfalls are surprising since the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public
Law 105-261) and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-262) provided the full
funding requested by the Department of Defense to sustain
active end strength at the requested levels. While continuing
recruiting challenges contribute in part to the projected
shortfalls, the committee believes that the fundamental cause
of the projected fiscal year 1999 end strength shortfall is an
inadequate commitment by the Army and the Air Force to sustain
required manpower levels with adequate resources.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that
future budget requests comply with the requirements of section
691 of title 10, United States Code, and provide the full
funding required to sustain the active end strengths at the
required levels. The committee estimates that because the
active manpower will end fiscal year 1999 below statutory
levels, there will be $152.9 million in fiscal year 2000 end
strength underexecution savings that the committee has
reallocated to support a range of high priority initiatives
that were not included in the budget request.
Section 403--Appointments to Certain Senior Joint Officer Positions
Section 525(b)(5) of title 10, United States Code, provides
a temporary exemption for general and flag officers who are
serving in certain senior joint officer positions from being
counted against the statutory limits on the numbers of three-
and four-star general and flag officers. This section would
make permanent the exemption which expires September 30, 2000.
The section would also prohibit the use of the exemption from
increasing the total numbers of general officers on active
duty, and from increasing the numbers of four-star general
officers by mandating that the exemptions be used to fill joint
three-star positions that, without the exemption, would
otherwise not be filled. Finally, the section would make
permanent the requirement that each service secretary nominate
a candidate to the Secretary of Defense to fill vacancies in
four-star joint officer command positions. The current
requirement expires on September 30, 2000.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for the selected reserve personnel, including the end strength
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves, as of
September 30, 2000:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000
Service FY 1999 FY 2000 committee Change from FY
authorized request recommendation 2000 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................. 357,223 350,000 350,000 0
Army Reserve.................................... 208,003 205,000 205,000 0
Naval Reserve................................... 90,843 90,288 90,288 0
Marine Corps Reserve............................ 40,018 39,624 39,624 0
Air National Guard.............................. 106,992 106,678 106,678 0
Air Force Reserve............................... 74,243 73,708 73,708 0
Coast Guard Reserve............................. 8,000 8,000 8,000 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 885,322 873,298 873,298 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of
September 30, 2000:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000
Service FY 1999 FY 2000 committee Change from FY
authorized request recommendation 2000 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................. 21,986 21,807 22,563 +756
Army Reserve.................................... 12,807 12,804 12,804 0
Naval Reserve................................... 15,590 15,010 15,010 0
Marine Corps Reserve............................ 2,362 2,272 2,272 0
Air National Guard.............................. 10,931 11,091 11,025 -66
Air Force Reserve............................... 992 1,078 1,078 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 64,668 64,062 64,752 +690
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee recommends an increase of 800 active guard
and reserve personnel (AGRs) in the Army National Guard to
recognize a validated shortfall in Army National Guard AGRs.
The increase reflects the committee's belief that such full
time personnel make a direct contribution to the readiness of
the selected reserve. Furthermore, the increase enhances the
ability of the national guard to assist, supplement, and in
many cases substitute for, the active components in meeting
peacetime contingency requirements. To provide for the AGR
increase, the committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million
in the national guard military personnel accounts.
The committee notes that the budget request neither sought
to increase the limit on the number of AGRs who can serve in
assignments related to the weapons of mass destruction program
(a limit imposed by section 511 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261),
nor did the budget request provide the justification for such
an increase that is required by section 511. For that reason,
the committee's recommendation on AGR end strength does not
recognize the 110 additional AGRs (44 in the Army National
Guard and 66 in the Air National Guard) included in the budget
request to support new requirements connected with the weapons
of mass destruction program. The committee looks `forward to
receiving the Department of Defense's subsequent request to
justify the increase.
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize the following end strength
floors for military technicians (dual status) as of September
30, 2000:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000
FY 1999 FY 2000 committee Change from FY
Service authorized request recommendation 2000 request
(floor) (floor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................. 23,125 21,361 23,125 +1,764
Army Reserve.................................... 5,395 5,179 6,474 +1,295
Air National Guard.............................. 22,408 22,247 22,247 0
Air Force Reserve............................... 9,761 9,785 9,785 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 60,689 58,572 61,631 +3,059
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's recommendation for higher end strengths
than contained in the budget request reflects the requirements
of section 10216 of title 10, United States Code, that provides
that military technician (dual status) end strength
authorizations shall only be reduced in connection with
military force structure reductions, and a recognition that in
the Army Reserve all technician positions must be filled by
military technicians (dual status).
The committee is disturbed to learn that, for the second
year in a row, the Secretary of the Army, contrary to law,
sought reductions in military technicians (dual status) that
were not justified by force structure reductions. Moreover, the
Secretary of the Army appears to have ignored the committee's
admonishment, contained in the committee report on H.R. 3616
(H. Rpt. 105-532), that he ensure that future budget requests
complied with the law when proposing reductions in military
technicians (dual status). Such disregard for Congressional
guidance is incomprehensible. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to report to the committee, by
December 30, 1999, the reasons why the Army failed to comply
with the law regarding military technician (dual status) end
strength reductions, and to report the measures he has taken to
prevent a reoccurrence of such a violation. In addition, the
committee urges the Secretary of the Army to fully cooperate
with the study by the Secretary of Defense that would be
required by section 526 of this bill. The purpose of that study
is to reform the Army's methodology and process for costing
civilian personnel and technician requirements to ensure those
requirements are fully resourced. Finally, in an effort to
restore some of the military technician (dual status) funding
and end strength shortfalls in the Army National Guard and the
Army Reserve, the committee recommends an increase of $56.5
million to Army National Guard operations and maintenance
accounts, and $35.0 million to Army Reserve operations and
maintenance accounts.
Section 414--Increase in Number of Army and Air Force Members in
Certain Grades Authorized to Serve on Active Duty in Support of the
Reserves
This section would authorize increases in the grades of
reserve members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-
time national guard duty for the administration of the reserves
or the national guard. The provision would authorize 33
additional lieutenant colonels, 52 additional majors, 8
additional E-9s, and 32 additional E-8s in the Air Force. The
provision would also authorize 33 additional colonels, 71
additional lieutenant colonels, and 22 additional E-9s in the
Army. The committee believes these increases are necessary to
support the additional missions now being performed by the
reserve components.
Section 415--Selected Reserve End Strength Flexibility
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to vary
by not more than two percent the selected reserve end strength
authorized in a fiscal year for any of the reserve components.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel
This section would authorize $72,115.8 million to be
appropriated for military personnel.
This authorization of appropriations reflects both
reductions and increases to the President's budget request.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military
personnel O&M
accounts Accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED INCREASES
Active End Strength:
Navy AOE-1 End Strength Buyback........... 5.0 ...........
USMC Increased Security Guard Battalion 6.6 4.1
Detachments End Strength.................
Reserve Component End Strength
Army National Guard Military Technician ........... 56.5
Underfunding.............................
Army National Guard 800 Additional AGR's.. 26.0 ...........
Army Reserve Military Technician ........... 35.0
Underfunding.............................
Compensation:
4.8% Military Basic Pay Raise............. 156.0 ...........
Overseas Military WIC program............. 2.0 ...........
Accelerate Phase-in of New BAH Rates...... 225.0 ...........
Buy-down Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs (3%). 217.5 ...........
Adjust General and Flag Officer Pay Cap... 1.0 ...........
Judge Advocate General Career Continuation 10.0 ...........
Pay......................................
Concurrent Receipt........................ 45.0 ...........
Army Recruiting:
Enlistment Bonus.......................... 15.0 ...........
Selective Reenlistment Bonus.............. 21.4 ...........
Advertising............................... ........... 16.4
Recruiter Support......................... ........... 15.5
Army National Guard Recruiting:
Advertising............................... ........... 18.0
Recruiter Support......................... ........... 13.0
Army Reserve Recruiting:
Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus........ 2.2 ...........
Prior Service Enlistment Bonus............ 1.0 ...........
Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve 6.7 ...........
Kicker...................................
Student Loan Repayment Program............ 1.5 ...........
Health Professions Loan Repayment......... 15.9 ...........
Retention & Transition Division Retention. 1.9 2.6
Recruiter Support......................... ........... 2.0
Advertising............................... ........... 26.7
Naval Reserve Recruiting
Enlistment/Reenlistment Bonuses........... 6.2 ...........
Montgomery GI Bill Kicker................. 1.5 ...........
Selected Reenlistment Bonus for Full-time 0.7 ...........
Support..................................
Armed Forces Health Professions 3.9 ...........
Scholarship..............................
Additional Recruiters..................... 5.2 ...........
Advertising............................... ........... 1.0
Recruiter Support......................... ........... 4.0
USMC Recruiting:
Advertising............................... ........... 8.1
Recruiting Operations and Support......... ........... 1.0
Air National Guard Recruiting:
Advertising............................... ........... 4.1
Air Force Reserve Recruiting:
Advertising............................... ........... 1.5
Recruiter Support......................... ........... 1.0
Senior ROTC: Increase Monthly Stipend ($150-
$200) (Reserve Personnel Accounts):
Army...................................... 5.9
Navy...................................... 2.2
Air Force................................. 3.3
Army Senior ROTC:
Marketing & Advertising................... ........... 5.5
Scholarships.............................. ........... 15.0
Operations and Training................... 1.4 1.8
Junior ROTC:
Army...................................... 1.4 2.0
USMC...................................... ........... 2.0
Air Force................................. ........... 19.0
Defense Health Program:
Waive CHAMPUS Deductibles for Dependents ........... 4.0
of Mobilized Reservists..................
Start-up Cost for Trauma Center........... ........... 4.0
Navy Medical Equipment & Property ........... 5.0
Maintenance..............................
Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines.... ........... 5.0
Army Maintenance & Repair................. ........... 1.0
Other:
International Student Program for Senior ........... 2.0
Military Colleges........................
Retirement Flags for Reservists........... ........... 5.0
USMC Voluntary Education Tuition ........... 3.0
Assistance...............................
-------------------------
Total Increase........................ 791.4 284.8
=========================
RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS
Retirement Reform............................. 392.0 ...........
Active 1999 End Strength Underexecution:
Army...................................... 31.9 ...........
Navy...................................... 9.0 ...........
Air Force................................. 112.0 ...........
USMC Reprogramming............................ 16.0 ...........
Innovative Readiness Training................. ........... 15.0
-------------------------
Total Reduction......................... 560.9 15.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Backlog in Requests for Replacement of Military Awards and Decorations
The committee is aware of delays in fulfilling requests
from veterans for replacement awards and decorations within
each of the armed services. For example, the Army estimates the
backlog for requests from veterans to be 98,000 going back over
2 years. The committee believes that our veterans deserve more
timely responses to their requests.
The committee understands that the armed services are
hopeful that new agreements authorizing the National Personnel
Records Center (NPRC) to verify entitlement of veterans to
awards and decorations will expedite the process and eliminate
backlogs. The committee desires to accelerate the recovery
process and allocate the resources necessary to provide timely
service to veterans.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military
departments, to study the process by which veterans are
provided replacement awards and decorations and determine what
resources and procedures are required to provide veterans more
timely responses. The Secretary shall submit a report with the
findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 31, 2000.
Commissioning of Ms. Ella E. Gibson
The committee notes that when the First Wisconsin Heavy
Artillery Regiment selected Ms. Ella E. Gibson to be their
chaplain in 1864, the Army denied the request. Notwithstanding
that disapproval, Ms. Gibson faithfully performed her duties as
chaplain for the unit without pay. Although the Congress
enacted private relief legislation in 1869 that provided her
full pay and emoluments of a chaplain, she was never
commissioned as an officer. The committee does not understand
why Ms. Gibson was denied a commission that she appears to have
earned.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to review the request for Ms. Ella Gibson to be
commissioned and determine if the request was properly
disapproved and whether that disapproval would be sustained
today. The Secretary shall submit a report with the findings
and recommendations resulting from this review to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 31, 2000. The report should include the
Secretary's judgment as to whether he possesses the authority
and justification to commission Ms. Gibson a captain, and any
recommendations concerning the need for legislation to
authorize a commission for Ms. Gibson.
Electronic Transmission of Certificates of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty
The committee is aware that Certificates of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) are not transmitted by
direct electronic means from the armed services to the Defense
Manpower Data Center (DMDC) or the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Although procedures governing the preparation of the
DD Form 214 authorize computer generation and electronic
transfer of the DD Form 214, the armed services do not employ
electronic transfer.
The committee believes that manual preparation and
transmission of DD Forms 214 increases errors, wastes
resources, and contributes to delays in the transmission of
information vital to the welfare of veterans.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the secretaries of the military departments,
to study the electronic transfer of DD Forms 214 and determine
the reasons why electronic transfer is presently not being
implemented. The Secretary shall submit a report with the
findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 31, 2000.
Enlisted Promotions
The committee is concerned that the inability of enlisted
members to be promoted in a timely manner has become a
disincentive for service members to remain in the military for
a career. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military
departments, to study enlisted promotion rates within the
services. The study should include analysis of historical data,
future projections, service promotion goals, and factors that
influence promotion rates. The Secretary shall submit a report
with the findings and recommendations resulting from this study
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000. The committee is
particularly interested in recommendations for legislation to
improve the timeliness of promotions.
Junior Reserve Officer Training Program (JROTC)
The committee understands from testimony provided by
Department of Defense witnesses that 40 percent of the
graduates of the JROTC program eventually join the military
services. Although the committee understands that the JROTC
program is not a military recruitment program and has no desire
to turn it into one, the committee strongly believes that
additional funding provided to the program will serve well the
long term manpower interests of the Department of Defense. For
that reason, the committee recommends an increase of $24.4
million for the JROTC program. The details of the recommended
increase are contained in the report language for section 421
of this bill.
Merchant Marine Academy Midshipmen
The committee is aware that the Navy has begun to issue
reserve identification cards to midshipmen at the Merchant
Marine Academy. The committee believes that it is appropriate
and beneficial for midshipmen to serve as members of the Naval
Reserve while attending the Merchant Marine Academy. The
committee hopes that the initial issue of reserve
identification cards to midshipmen will be expedited and that
future midshipmen will be issued reserve identification cards
routinely when entering the Merchant Marine Academy.
Recruiting
The committee continues to be concerned that the services
are not able to attract sufficient high quality recruits to
maintain the quality force so critical to readiness. The
committee recognizes that the services face a difficult
recruiting environment. The lowest unemployment rate since the
creation of the all volunteer force, higher college enrollments
and reduced awareness of the advantages of military service
have all contributed to a decline in the inclination for
America's youth to choose the military as their first employer.
As a result, the services must work very hard to remain
competitive.
During the last two years, the committee has added over
$300.0 million to recruiting operations, advertising and
incentives. The committee asked the services to identify
recruiting requirements not funded in the fiscal year 2000
budget request. To the committee's surprise despite long-
standing, well-known, and continuing recruiting challenges that
the committee believes should have been better anticipated, the
services' recruiting programs are underfunded in fiscal year
2000 by $198.0 million. The size of this shortfall suggests
that either the estimating process used by the services is
highly inaccurate, or the services are only marginally funding,
perhaps even underfunding, their recruiting efforts. In any
case, the committee urges the services to take corrective
action to ensure recruiting resources presented in the budget
more closely match requirements. With regard to the fiscal year
2000 shortfall, the committee recommends increases, detailed in
the report language to accompany section 421 of this bill, to
eliminate the shortfall.
During the last two years, the services have reduced
recruit quality standards. The Army and the Navy have reduced
their respective goals for accession of high school diploma
graduates. The Air Force and Marine Corps have experienced a
steady erosion in the quality of recruits.
The committee believes that further reductions to recruit
quality standards present a very costly and dangerous risk to
military readiness. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of
the military departments, to study the minimum quality
standards established by the Department of Defense for new
recruits and determine if those standards remain valid. The
Secretary shall submit a report with the findings and
recommendations resulting from this study to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 31, 2000. If the Secretary determines that a
reduction in recruit quality standards is appropriate, the
report should include a discussion of the implications of such
a reduction for personnel training costs, retention, and force
readiness.
The committee is concerned that the growth in funding
allocated to recruiting advertising over the past three years
has resulted in increased advertising competition between the
services and a wasteful escalation in advertising costs. The
committee is also concerned that the effectiveness of
advertising programs has not been evaluated to confirm that
advertising resources are employed in the most efficient manner
possible. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military
departments, to study the competitive nature of recruiting
advertising and determine if advertising funds have been
increased due to competition between the services. In this
regard, the Secretary should examine the need to centrally
manage recruiting advertising spending by the services to avoid
wasteful competition. The Secretary should also review all
advertising programs and confirm that each program is an
efficient use of resources within the context of the total
advertising budget in each service. The Secretary shall submit
a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from
this study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000.
Senior Reserve Officers Training Program (SROTC)
The committee is concerned that the SROTC programs of two
services are projected to fall short of their officer
production quotas. The Army will miss its goal by 513 officers,
or 14 percent, and the Air Force will miss its goal by 95
officers, or 4 percent. Such shortfalls are symptomatic of
broad recruiting difficulties that exist across the military
services. Within the SROTC program, the shortfalls appear to be
related to two major issues: an inadequate subsistence
allowance provided to students enrolled in the SROTC program,
and insufficient resources for the Army program, especially
with regard to scholarship funding. To help reverse the
shortfalls, the committee recommends an increase from $150 to
$200 in the monthly SROTC subsistence allowance, and
recommends, as detailed in the report language for section 421
of this bill, an increase of $23.7 million for the Army SROTC
program.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Section 501--Recommendations for Promotion by Selection Boards
This section would authorize at least one below the
promotion zone promotion for warrant officer competitive
categories where the entitlement to a below the promotion
opportunity is calculated as less than one. The section would
align warrant officer procedures with the procedures already in
place for officers.
Section 502--Technical Amendments Relating to Joint Duty Assignments
Section 619a of title 10, United States Code, requires that
an officer serve a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment
as a prerequisite to promotion to brigadier general or rear
admiral (lower half). Section 619a also provided authority to
the Secretary of Defense until January 1, 1999, to waive this
requirement for some officers under certain conditions, and
waived the requirement, until January 1, 1997, for nuclear
propulsion officers. This section would amend section 619a to
reflect the expired status of this waiver authority, but would
retain the requirement that officers who received waivers
before January 1, 1997 and January 1, 1999 must complete a full
tour of duty in a joint duty assignment as a prerequisite for
appointment to lieutenant general or vice admiral.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components
Section 511--Continuation on Reserve Active Status List to Complete
Disciplinary Action
This section would authorize the service secretaries to
retain a reserve officer in an active status until completion
of a court-martial action.
Section 512--Authority to Order Reserve Component Members to Active
Duty to Complete a Medical Evaluation
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
Defense, to order a reserve member to active duty to receive
medical care, to be medically evaluated for disability or other
purpose, or to complete a required Department of Defense health
care study. The section would require the member to consent to
the recall.
Section 513--Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion
This section would authorize reserve officers serving in an
educational delay status due to government sponsored attendance
at institutions of higher education to be made ineligible for
promotion during the period of educational delay. The section
would also authorize promotion nonselections to be expunged
when nonselection occurred while the officer served in an
educational delay status after October 1, 1996.
Section 514--Retention until Completion of 20 Years of Service for
Reserve Component Majors and Lieutenant Commanders Who Twice Fail of
Selection for Promotion
This section would authorize reserve officers with more
than 20 years of service to remain in an active status for 6
months after being notified of their second nonselection for
promotion.
Section 515--Computation of Years of Service Exclusion
This section would exclude time served in a college student
commissioning status from the computation of years of service
for reserve officers. The section would align the procedures
used to compute years of service for reserve officers with the
procedures used to compute years of service for active duty
officers.
Section 516--Authority to Retain Reserve Component Chaplains until Age
67
This section would authorize reserve chaplains in the Army
and the Air Force to be retained 7 additional years to age 67
to address manning shortages in certain religious
denominations.
Section 517--Expansion and Codification of Authority for Space-Required
Travel for Reserves
This section would authorize reserve members to travel in a
space required status on military aircraft between the member's
home and place of reserve duty when there is no road or
railroad transportation between those locations.
Section 518--Financial Assistance Program for Specially Selected
Members of the Marine Corps Reserve
This section would reform the financial inducements used in
the Platoon Leaders Class (PLC) program, the principal source
for United States Marine Corps officers. As currently operated,
a college graduate who completes the PLC program and is
commissioned as a second lieutenant gets longevity credit, for
purposes of calculating military basic pay, for the years spent
in the PLC program. The new Marine lieutenant also incurs an 8
year service commitment, with at least 42 months of that time
served on active duty. This section would abolish the longevity
credit for lieutenants commissioned after the date of
enactment. Instead, the Secretary of the Navy would be
authorized to provide $5,200 per academic year for a maximum of
three years to a college student enrolled in the PLC program
who continues to meet certain prerequisites while in college,
and who agrees to be commissioned with an eight-year service
commitment, five of which must be served on active duty.
Section 519--Options to Improve Recruiting for the Army Reserve
The committee is concerned that the Army Recruiting
Command, which provides new enlistees for both the Army and
Army Reserve, will miss its Army Reserve fiscal year 1999
recruiting objectives by as much as 9,500 soldiers. Such a
shortfall, if it occurs, would mark the second consecutive year
that the Army Recruiting Command has failed to produce the
required number of Army Reserve recruits. Reversing such trends
is critical to the health of the Army Reserve. Consequently,
the committee believes that an in-depth review of the Army's
system of recruiting for the Army Reserve is required. This
section would direct the Secretary of the Army to conduct such
a review, to include examining, as a possible course of
corrective action, whether the responsibility for Army Reserve
recruiting should be placed under the control of the Chief,
Army Reserve.
Subtitle C--Military Technicians
Section 521--Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status) Law
This section would clarify section 10216 of title 10,
United States Code, pertaining to military technicians (dual
status), and extend the time from 6 months to up to 12 months
that a person may remain employed as a technician in the Army
and Air Force Reserve following loss of status as a military
technician (dual status).
Section 522--Civil Service Retirement of Technicians
Beginning with the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), and continuing through
the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997 (Public Law
104-201), and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), the Congress has given repeated
direction to the secretaries of the military departments to
transform the technician workforce. Among other objectives, the
Congress directed the military services to make maximum use of
military technicians (dual status) and to reduce the numbers of
non-dual status technicians.
To that latter end, this section would require the
retirement of retirement-eligible Army or Air Force Reserve
military technicians (dual status) upon loss of dual status.
The section would also establish procedures for the continued
employment of certain non-retirement eligible technicians in
the Army or Air Force Reserve who had been hired on or before
February 10, 1996, as well as for the re-employment and
separation of non dual-status technicians hired subsequently.
The section also would make a non-dual status technician in
the Army or Air Force Reserve ineligible for a voluntary
personnel action involving a military technician (dual status)
position. The section would define ``voluntary personnel
action'' as one involving the hiring, entry, appointment,
reassignment, or transfer into a military technician (dual
status) position other than the one occupied by the non-dual
status technician; or promotion in grade in a current position,
if the non-dual status technician occupies a position which the
Secretary of the Army or Air Force, as appropriate, has
designated as requiring a military technician (dual status).
The section would take effect one year after the date of
enactment of this bill.
The section would create a new early retirement criteria
for any technician hired after February 10, 1996 who becomes a
non-dual status technician. The new criteria would make a
military technician (dual status) eligible for immediate
retirement after completing 25 years of service, or after
becoming 50 years of age and completing 20 years of service.
The committee believes that such revised retirement criteria
will help to ensure the sustainment of the youthful, vigorous
technician force that will be required in the 21st Century.
The section would also permit Army and Air Force Reserve
technicians who qualify for the Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS) to be provided a disability retirement--something that,
heretofore, only national guard technicians under CSRS were
qualified for.
Section 523--Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians Statute
The committee recognizes that the national guard, as well
as the Army and Air Force Reserves, require a limited number of
non-dual status technicians to operate effectively. Therefore,
this section would limit the total number of non-dual status
technicians in the national guard to no more than 1,950 on and
after October 1, 2001, and the total in the Army and Air Force
Reserves to no more than 175, on or after October 1, 2007. If
at any time after the effective dates the numerical limits are
exceeded, the section would require that the Secretary of
Defense take action to require the appropriate secretaries of
the military services to immediately reduce the excess.
Section 524--Revision to Authorities Relating to National Guard
Technicians
This section would amend section 709 of title 32, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Air Force to employ non-dual status
technicians in the national guard.
Section 525--Effective Date
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85) required the Secretary of Defense to
provide to the Congress by May 1998, a plan for the elimination
of all non-dual status technicians by September 30, 2007. For
reasons that the committee is unable to understand, the
Secretary of Defense has failed to provide the required plan.
This section would delay the non-dual status technician
employment authority provided to the Department in sections 523
and 524 in this bill until 180 days after the Secretary of
Defense meets the fiscal year 1998 requirement or provides an
alternative plan for non-dual status technicians.
Section 526--Secretary of Defense Review of Army Technician Costing
Process
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
review, and if necessary direct revisions to, the procedures
and processes employed by the Army to develop budget estimates
of the required annual authorizations and appropriations for
civilian personnel, and especially Army National Guard and Army
Reserve military technicians (dual status).
Section 527--Fiscal Year 2000 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status
Technicians
This section would establish numerical limits on the number
of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the
Department of Defense as of September 30, 2000.
Subtitle D--Service Academies
Section 531--Waiver of Reimbursement of Expenses for Instruction at
Service Academies of Persons from Foreign Countries
Current law permits the Secretary of Defense to waive the
full cost of attendance for international students admitted to
the service academies, for up to 5 students at a time at each
academy, and to waive up to 35 percent of the cost of
attendance for all other international students. This section
would increase the Secretary's authority by allowing the full
cost waivers for up to 20 students at a time at each academy,
and by permitting the waiver of up to 50 percent of the cost of
attendance for all other international students.
Section 532--Compliance by United States Military Academy with
Statutory Limit on Size of Corps of Cadets
Section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1992 (Public Law 102-190) limits to 4,000 the
authorized strength of cadets at the United States Military
Academy, as well as the other service academies, for class
years beginning after 1994. The number of cadets at the United
States Military Academy has exceeded the authorized number
since September 30, 1997. This section would require the
Secretary of the Army to bring the academy into compliance with
the law by the day prior to the graduation date of the first,
or senior class, in June 2002. The section would also provide
authority for the Secretary of the Army in 1999, 2000 and 2001
to vary the cadet end strengths from the statutory limit. The
section would also repeal section 511, add the strength
limitations of that section to title 10, United States Code,
and require that compliance with the cadet and midshipmen
strength limitations will be measured annually as of the day
before graduation for each of the service academies.
Section 533--Dean of Academic Board, United States Military Academy,
and Dean of the Faculty, United States Air Force Academy
This section would authorize the Dean of the Academic
Board, United States Military Academy, and Dean of the Faculty,
United States Air Force Academy to hold the rank of brigadier
general. The section would also require that these two general
officers be counted against and not increase either the
statutory limits on the total number of general officers.
Section 534--Exclusion from Certain General and Flag Officer Grade
Strength Limitations for the Superintendents of the Service Academies
This section would exempt officers while serving as the
superintendents of the service academies, when serving in the
grades of lieutenant general or vice admiral, from counting
against the limits imposed by section 525(b) of title 10,
United States Code. That section limits the number of generals
and admirals serving above the grade of major general or rear
admiral in each service to no more than 15 percent of the total
number of generals and admirals for that service.
Subtitle E--Education and Training
Section 541--Establishment of a Department of Defense International
Student Program at the Senior Military Colleges
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
furtherance of the objectives of the Department of Defense's
existing international student and military-to-military
programs' objectives, to establish and fund a program to
facilitate the enrollment and instruction of international
students at the Senior Military Colleges (SMC). The Secretary
of Defense would also be authorized to underwrite, in whole or
in part, the cost of the international students' attendance at
the SMCs.
Section 542--Authority for Army War College to Award Degree of Master
of Strategic Studies
This section would authorize the commandant of the United
States Army War College, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of the Army, to confer the degree of master of
strategic studies upon graduates of the college who meet the
requirements for the degree.
Section 543--Authority for Air University to Award Graduate-Level
Degrees
This section would authorize the commander of the Air War
College to confer the degree of master of strategic studies
upon graduates of the Air War College, and to confer the degree
of master of airpower art and science upon graduates of the Air
Command and Staff College.
Section 544--Correction of Reserve Credit for Participation in Health
Professional Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program
Section 2126(b) of title 10, United States Code, authorizes
the Secretary of Defense to award reserve retirement credit to
a person for time spent in an educational program under the
Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP). This provision
would amend that section by requiring a person to complete
satisfactory service in the selected reserve in order to gain
the retirement credit. In addition, the provision would repeal
the authority of the Secretary to award years of service credit
for the purposes of calculating military basic pay to a person
for time spent in the HPSP.
Section 545--Permanent Expansion of ROTC Program to Include Graduate
Students
This section would make permanent the authority of the
service secretaries to provide financial assistance to graduate
students who participate in a senior Reserve Officer Training
Corps (ROTC) program. The current authority, which enabled the
service secretaries to test the desirability and effectiveness
of an ROTC scholarship program for graduate students, expires
September 30, 1999.
Section 546--Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for Senior ROTC
Cadets Selected for Advanced Training
This section would increase the monthly subsistence
allowance of senior ROTC cadets from $150 per month to $200 per
month.
Section 547--Contingent Funding Increase for Junior ROTC Program
This section would require that any funds appropriated
annually for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program in
excess of $62.5 million would be provided to the Junior Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program.
Section 548--Change from Annual to Biennial Reporting under the Reserve
Component Montgomery GI Bill
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on the reserve component Montgomery GI Bill on
a biennial basis in lieu of the current requirement to submit
the report on an annual basis.
Section 549--Recodification and Consolidation of Statutes Denying
Federal Grants and Contracts by Certain Departments and Agencies to
Institutions of Higher Education that Prohibit Senior ROTC Units or
Military Recruiting on Campus
This section would consolidate and recodify three
provisions of law related to colleges and universities that
prohibit senior Reserve Officers Training Corps units or
military recruiting on campus.
Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards
Section 551--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain
Decorations to Certain Persons
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for
the award of military decorations to individuals who have been
recommended for award of the decorations by the secretaries of
the military departments.
Section 552--Sense of Congress Concerning Presidential Unit Citation
for Crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis
The committee believes that the courageous and skilled
performance of the crew of the USS Indianapolis throughout
World War II prior to the tragic sinking of the cruiser on July
30, 1945 is deserving of the award of the Presidential Unit
Citation. From her participation in the earliest offensive
actions in the Pacific in World War II, to her pivotal role in
delivering the weapon that brought the war to an end, the USS
Indianapolis and her crew left an indelible imprint on our
nation's struggle to eventual victory.
Accordingly, this section would express the sense of
Congress that the President should award a Presidential Unit
Citation to the crew of the USS Indianapolis.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 561--Revision in Authority to Order Retired Members to Active
Duty
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201) severely curtailed both the numbers of
military retirees that the Secretary of Defense might recall to
active duty, as well as the period of time recalled retirees
might serve. Having considered the current significant manning
shortfalls in all the armed forces, the committee believes that
an expansion of the Secretary's authority to employ additional
recalled retirees is necessary. Therefore, this section would
permit the Secretary to recall up to 150 retired officers to
active duty, and permit a recalled officer to serve up to 36
months. The committee believes that judicious use of this
expanded authority could provide each of the military services
with critical manpower resources to help address personnel
shortfalls.
Section 562--Temporary Authority for Recall of Retired Aviators
The committee is concerned that recent pilot shortages have
caused vacancies in staff positions requiring aviation
expertise. Accordingly, this section would authorize the
secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with
the Secretary of Defense, to conduct a pilot program to recall
to active duty officers with aviation expertise to serve in
aviation staff billets. The section would authorize a maximum
of 500 officers throughout the Department of Defense to be
recalled to active duty during the period October 1, 1999
through September 30, 2002. The section would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the results of the
pilot program to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 31,
2002. The section would require the Secretary of Defense to
include in the report his recommendation concerning extension
of the authority.
Section 563--Service Review Agencies Covered by Professional Staffing
Requirement
This section would clarify that the requirement for legal
and medical professional staff specified in section 1555 of
title 10, United States Code, apply to the Navy Council of
Personnel Boards and the Board for Correction of Naval Records
as if the staff of those organizations were combined.
Section 564--Conforming Amendment to Authorize Reserve Officers and
Retired Regular Officers to Hold a Civil Office while Serving on Active
Duty for Not More than 270 Days
This section would increase the number of days that reserve
members and retired regular officers may serve on active duty
and continue to hold a civil office from not more than 180 to
not more than 270 days. The section would align the limit on
the number of days that can be served on active duty while
continuing to hold a civil office to the number of days that
the President may call a reserve member to active duty under
section 12304 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 565--Revision to Requirement for Honor Guard Details at
Funerals of Veterans
Section 567 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) required the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, to convene a conference to determine means of
improving and increasing the availability of military burial
honors for veterans, and to report the findings and
recommendations resulting from the conference to the Congress.
The section also required the secretaries of the military
departments to provide, upon request, honor guard details for
the funerals of the veterans comprised of not less than three
persons with the capability to play a recording of Taps for
funerals after December 31, 1999.
The conferees intended that the requirement to provide a
three-person burial detail upon request of a veteran to be
effective only if the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs did not recommend an acceptable alternative
proposal in the required report. This section would implement
the alternative plan submitted by the Secretary of Defense. The
section would require the secretaries of the military
departments to provide, upon request, honor guard details for
the funerals of veterans. The section would specify that the
honor guard details be comprised of not less than two persons
with the capability to play a recording of Taps. At least one
member of the honor guard detail would be a member of the same
service as the deceased veteran. The Secretary of Defense would
be required to establish procedures for coordinating and
responding to requests for honor guard details, establishing
standards and protocol, and providing training and quality
control. The Secretary would also be authorized to provide
financial support, material, equipment, and training to support
nongovernmental organizations, as necessary to support honor
guard activities.
The section would also provide incentives to facilitate the
participation of reservists by providing retirement credit,
reimbursement for transportation costs, and a $50 stipend to
reservists who volunteer to provide funeral honors.
The Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the
military departments would be authorized to waive the
requirements of this section only to meet the demands of
contingency operations or other military requirements, and only
after the Congress has been advised that a waiver has been
granted.
The committee believes that the alternative outlined in
this section would meet the high standard for providing
appropriate honors to those Americans who unselfishly answered
the call to arms.
Section 566--Purpose and Funding Limitations for National Guard
Challenge Program
This section would clarify that the National Guard
Challenge Program must consist of a 22-week residential
program, and a 12-month post residential mentoring period. The
section would also expand the range of supervised work
experience that Challenge students might experience, in
addition to the community service work experience currently
provided. Finally, the section would increase the limit on the
annual amount of federal funds that can be spent on the program
from $50.0 million to $62.5 million.
Section 567--Access to Secondary School Students for Military
Recruiting Purposes
The committee strongly believes that military recruiters
should not be disadvantaged, compared to other prospective
employers, with regard to access to secondary school students.
Therefore, this section would emphasize the committee's
position by requesting that each local educational entity with
responsibility for secondary school education provide military
recruiters the same access to students as is provided to other
prospective employers.
Section 568--Survey of Members Leaving Military Service on Attitudes
Toward Military Service
Increasingly, the services are experiencing difficulty
retaining career officer and enlisted personnel. In testimony
before the committee, service personnel cited pay, reduced
benefits, increased operations and deployment tempo, and a good
economy as reasons they are leaving the military. The committee
is concerned about the decreasing retention rates and feels it
is imperative to get beyond the anecdotes contained in
testimony to better understand the reasons for such trends.
Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a one-time survey of military personnel leaving the
services between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2000 to determine
military members' attitudes on a variety of subjects which may
be affecting retention. Among the topics to be surveyed are:
service members' attitudes toward civilian and military
leadership, the effect of a constrained fiscal environment on
the force, and military members' views on overall job
satisfaction. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
provide a report of the survey results to the Congress by
October 1, 2000.
Section 569--Improvement in System for Assigning Personnel to
Warfighting Units
This section would require the secretaries of the military
departments to review the military personnel assignment system
under their jurisdiction and identify those policies which
prevent warfighting units from being fully manned. It also
requires the service secretaries change or modify those
policies in order to raise the priority of warfighting units in
the manpower manning system and report on the changes to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by December 31, 2000.
The committee continues to be concerned about the shortage
of manpower in combat units throughout the force. In almost
every hearing held, service leaders told the committee that one
of the most serious readiness problems facing the military was
a lack of personnel in combat units. The committee heard
testimony about aircraft carriers deploying with over 400
billets vacant. At the Army's National Training Center, the
opposing force commander testified that undermanned units
participating in training rotations were not able to handle the
high intensity scenarios and did not receive the maximum
benefit from the exercise.
The committee is concerned that the service personnel
systems do not make manning combat units a priority. The
constant requirement to man billets in the supporting
establishment and external agencies often means that combat
units are not manned to the levels necessary for maximum combat
effectiveness. The committee understands the importance of the
services manning billets on the Joint Staff, recruit training
battalions, drill instructor duty, White House support duty and
other high-visibility, non-combat units. However, the committee
also believes that the manpower systems should be modified so
that combat units receive a higher priority in allocating
critical manpower resources.
Section 570--Requirement for Department of Defense Regulations to
Protect the Confidentiality of Communications Between Dependents and
Professionals Providing Therapeutic or Related Services Regarding
Sexual or Domestic Abuse
This section would require the Comptroller General to
conduct a study of the policies regarding confidentiality
between military dependents and their psychotherapists. The
Secretary of Defense would be required to prescribe regulations
to protect confidentiality 90 days after receiving the
Comptroller General's report.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee remains deeply concerned about the level of
compensation provided to service members and their families.
The committee believes that enhanced compensation, to include
military retirement, is pivotal to reversing the negative
retention trends that plagued the services as the drawdown of
military forces came to an end. By spring of 1998, retention
problems that had alarmed the committee since 1995 had
developed into serious retention shortfalls that commanded the
attention of senior military and civilian leaders in the
Department of Defense.
The committee notes that the budget request included a
number of initiatives that respond to the committee's previous
recommendations for improving compensation programs to address
the retention challenges confronting the military. The
committee is pleased to support the following triad of major
compensation initiatives that have finally been included in the
budget request after years of delay:
(1) Full Employment Cost Index (ECI) pay raises.
(2) Pay table reform to recognize individual effort
and increase retention.
(3) Reform of the military retirement system.
While the committee is generally impressed with the
comprehensive compensation package included in the budget
request, the committee is disappointed that the military pay
raise was limited to 4.4 percent. Accordingly, the committee
recommends that an additional $156.0 million be allocated to
increase the pay raise to 4.8 percent.
The committee is also concerned that future pay raises
remain sufficient to preclude further erosion of military pay
when compared to pay raise trends in the private sector.
Accordingly, the committee would require that future pay raises
be calculated using the full ECI.
The committee recognizes that retention of a quality force
requires a competitive retirement system. Accordingly, the
committee would enhance military retirement and offer mid-
career service members choices to give them more control over
their retirement plan. The committee would also require the
Secretary of Defense to examine tax deferred savings plan
options that could be used to expand the list of retirement
options available to service members in the future.
The committee recognizes that this bill does not address
all military compensation concerns. However, the committee
remains committed to improving the compensation programs that
are critical to retaining a quality force. The committee hopes
the budget request reflects a new commitment by the
Administration to properly support service members and their
families that will be reflected in future budget requests.
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Tax Deferred Savings Plans
The committee believes that tax deferred savings plans
offer the military services cost effective opportunities for
enhancing retention that should be explored. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the secretaries of the military departments, to examine
the potential for implementing a variety of options for tax
deferred savings plans as supplements and alternatives to
current military retirement systems. The Secretary should
consider options that include government matching
contributions, time-delayed vesting schemes, and plans designed
to increase retention within select segments of the force, to
include those members with more that 20 years of service. For
each of the options being evaluated, the Secretary should
consider authorizing the participation of members of the
reserve components. The Secretary shall submit a report with
the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services by September 30, 2000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Fiscal Year 2000 Increase in Military Basic Pay and Reform
of Basic Pay Rates
This section would provide a 4.8 percent military pay raise
effective January 1, 2000. This is four-tenths of one percent
more than the pay raise called for in the budget request. To
provide for this enhanced pay raise, the committee recommends
an increase of $156.0 million over the amount requested in the
President's request.
This section would also restructure the pay tables to
reduce pay compression between grades, eliminate
inconsistencies in the pay table, and increase incentives for
promotion effective July 1, 2000. This section would also
adjust the cap on military pay levels to level III of the
Executive Schedule to bring the standards for maximum pay in
line with the standards established for federal civilian
employees.
Section 602--Pay Increases for Fiscal Years after Fiscal Year 2000
This section would require that the rate of military pay
increases for fiscal years after fiscal year 2000 be calculated
using the full Employment Cost Index. The committee believes it
is critical that military members know that they can expect
future military pay increases to keep pace with the rate of pay
increases in the private sector.
Section 603--Additional Amount Available for Fiscal Year 2000 Increase
in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States
The committee is concerned that military families are not
receiving sufficient reimbursement for housing and that many
families are electing to live in less than adequate housing in
an effort to save money. The committee has had a long standing
interest in reducing the out-of-pocket cost of housing for
service members to correct the problem. The committee was
disappointed that the Secretary of Defense abandoned a multi-
year strategy to restore out-of-pocket housing costs to the
Congressionally established standard of 15 percent after just
one year following its introduction in the fiscal year 1996
budget request. The committee continued the program for one
additional year until the basic allowance for housing (BAH)
program was reformed in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). Now that the new
basic allowance for housing system is operational, the
committee desires to resume a program to reduce out-of-pocket
housing costs for military families.
The committee also desires to accelerate the schedule set
by the Secretary of Defense for achieving market based BAH
rates as required by the BAH reform legislation cited above.
The committee believes that adopting the higher rates
immediately will provide much needed relief to military
families in high cost areas.
Accordingly, this section would increase the funding
available for basic allowance for housing by $442.5 million.
The committee recommends that $217.5 million be allocated for
the purpose of reducing out-of-pocket housing costs for service
members, and that $225.0 million be allocated to accelerate
implementation of market-based BAH rates.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities
for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve
in critically short wartime specialties, the selected reserve
reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment bonus,
special pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve
assigned to certain high priority units, the selected reserve
affiliation bonus, the ready reserve enlistment and
reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus
until December 31, 2000. The provision would also extend the
authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health
care professionals who serve in the selected reserve until
January 1, 2001.
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities
for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists until December 31, 2000.
Section 613--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other
Bonuses and Special Pays
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, reenlistment bonus for active members,
enlistment bonus for persons with critical skills, Army
enlistment bonus, special pay for nuclear qualified officers
extending the period of active service, nuclear career
accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus
to December 31, 2000.
Section 614--Aviation Career Incentive Pay for Air Battle Managers
This section would authorize air battle managers to be paid
either aviation career incentive pay (ACIP) or hazardous duty
pay under section 301(a)(11) of title 37, United States Code,
whichever is greater.
Section 615--Expansion of Authority to Provide Special Pay to Aviation
Career Officers Extending Period of Active Duty
This section would expand the authority to pay Aviation
Continuation Pay (ACP) to aviation officers in grades below 0-7
through their twenty-fifth year of service. The section would
also extend the $25,000 maximum annual amount of the bonus to
all contracts, regardless of length.
Section 616--Diving Duty Special Pay
This section would increase the maximum amount of monthly
pay for diving duty from $200 to $240 for officers, and from
$300 to $340 for enlisted members. The section would also
repeal the restriction limiting recipients of diving duty pay
to one additional hazardous duty pay under section 301 of title
37, United States Code. Service members performing diving duty
would be authorized to receive two hazardous duty pays under
section 301 of title 37, United State Code.
Section 617--Reenlistment Bonus
This section would reduce the number of months of service
required before reaching eligibility to receive a reenlistment
bonus from 21 to 17. The section would also increase the
formula for determining the amount of the bonus from 10 to 15
times the rate of monthly basic pay and the maximum bonus
authorized from $45,000 to $60,000.
Section 618--Enlistment Bonus
This section would increase the maximum enlistment bonus
authorized from $12,000 to $20,000 and authorize the payment of
the bonus to be a single lump sum or periodic installments.
Section 619--Revised Eligibility Requirements for Reserve Component
Prior Service Enlistment Bonus
This section would expand the eligibility for the payment
of a reserve component prior service enlistment bonus to
service members who achieve a level of qualification
commensurate with their grade and years of service following
training or retraining in a critically short specialty skill.
Section 620--Increase in Special Pay and Bonuses for Nuclear-Qualified
Officers
This section would increase the maximum amount of annual
special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of
active service from $15,000 to $25,000; the maximum amount of
the nuclear career accession bonus from $10,000 to $20,000; the
maximum amount of the nuclear career annual incentive bonus for
officers who received naval nuclear power plant training as
officers from $12,000 to $22,000; and the maximum amount of the
nuclear career annual incentive bonus for officers who received
naval nuclear power plant training as enlisted members from
$5,500 to $10,000.
Section 621--Increase in Authorized Monthly Rate of Foreign Language
Proficiency Pay
This section would increase the maximum amount of monthly
foreign language proficiency pay from $100 to $300.
Section 622--Authorization of Retention Bonus for Special Warfare
Officers Extending Period of Active Duty
This section would authorize the annual payment of a
maximum retention bonus of $15,000 to special warfare qualified
officers in the grades of 0-3 or 0-4 (not selected for
promotion) for each year the officer agrees to serve on active
duty from the sixth through the fourteenth year of service.
Section 623--Authorization of Surface Warfare Officer Continuation Pay
This section would authorize the payment of a maximum
retention bonus of $50,000 in prorated annual payments to
qualified surface warfare officers who agree to serve on active
duty to complete tours of duty to which the officers may be
ordered as department heads afloat. The section would require
that officers must be selected for assignments as department
heads on surface ships and must complete any service commitment
incurred through the officer's original commissioning program
before being eligible for the retention bonus.
Section 624--Authorization of Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay
This section would authorize continuous payment of a
maximum monthly incentive pay of $400 to enlisted members who
serve in skills that require career-long operational flying
duties. The section would require the service members to
perform flying duties for 6 of the first 10, 9 of the first 15,
and 14 of the first 20 years of aviation service up to a
maximum of 25 years of aviation service.
Section 625--Authorization of Judge Advocate Continuation Pay
The committee has observed a growing problem in recruiting
and retaining judge advocates in the armed services.
Accordingly, this section would authorize the service
secretaries to pay officers serving as judge advocates a career
continuation pay of up to $60,000 over the course of a career.
The service secretaries would establish the payment schedules
and amounts.
The section would also require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the secretaries concerned, to study the need
for additional incentives to improve the recruitment and
retention of judge advocates. At a minimum, the Secretary would
be required to include in the study assessments of constructive
service credit for basic pay, educational loan repayment, and
federal student loan relief initiatives. The Secretary shall
submit a report with the findings and recommendations resulting
from this study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Section 631--Provision of Lodging in Kind for Reservists Performing
Training Duty and Not Otherwise Entitled to Travel and Transportation
Allowances
This section would authorize the use of operations and
maintenance funds to provide lodging in kind to reservists
performing active duty or inactive duty for training when
transient government housing is not available.
Section 632--Payment of Temporary Lodging Expenses for Members Making
their First Permanent Change of Station
This section would authorize the payment of temporary
lodging expenses to enlisted members upon assignment to their
first permanent duty station from the member's home of record
or training installation.
Section 633--Emergency Leave Travel Cost Limitations
This section would expand the authority for members and
dependents stationed overseas to return at government expense
during family emergencies. In addition to providing
transportation to the closest airport of embarkation, the
section would authorize transportation to any airport in the
continental United States to which travel can be arranged at
the same or lower cost as transportation provided to the
closest airport of embarkation.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay Reform
Sections 641-644--Redux Retired Pay System Applicable Only to Members
Electing New 15-Year Career Status Bonus
The committee is concerned that the retirement plan adopted
in the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
348), commonly referred to as the Redux plan, is inadequate to
attract mid-career members to remain in the armed services for
a 20-year career. The committee believes that a successful
strategy to reverse current unfavorable retention trends must
include a modification of the Redux retirement plan.
Accordingly, this subtitle would authorize members covered
by Redux the option to elect to retire under the pre-1986
military retirement plan with the same cost-of-living
adjustment mechanism used under the Federal Employees
Retirement System, or to accept a one-time $30,000 lump sum
bonus and remain under the Redux retirement plan. Service
members who elect to accept the lump sum bonus would be
obligated to serve the remaining five years to become
retirement eligible.
The committee believes that providing members the option to
select the cash bonus or the pre-1986 retirement plan is an
effective way to restore the power of the retirement system as
an important positive factor in the decision of service members
to remain in the armed services.
Subtitle E--Other Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits Matters
Section 651--Effective Date of Disability Retirement for Members Dying
in Civilian Medical Facilities
The committee notes that there have been cases where the
benefits paid to survivors of members who die on active duty
have been reduced because civilian medical facilities have
determined a date and time of death that is different from that
that would have been determined in a military treatment
facility. The committee notes that military treatment
facilities are sensitive to the increased survivor benefits
derived when the member dies in retired status and will prolong
life, when possible, to allow the member to be medically
retired. This section would authorize service secretaries to
specify a later time of death for disability retirement
purposes for members of the armed services who die in civilian
medical facilities. The section would require that the time of
death determined by the service secretary be consistent with
the time of death that would be determined if the member had
died in a military facility. The section would require that the
time of death determined by the service secretary not be later
than 48 hours after the time of death determined by the
civilian medical facility.
Section 652--Extension of Annuity Eligibility for Surviving Spouses of
Certain Retirement Eligible Reserve Members
This section would authorize surviving spouses of reserve
retirees who died prior to October 1, 1978 to receive the
annuity authorized for surviving spouses by section 644 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85). The section would align the entitlement provided
to reserve surviving spouses with the entitlement provided to
similarly situated surviving spouses of active duty members.
Section 653--Presentation of United States Flag to Retiring Members of
the Uniformed Services Not Previously Covered
This section would authorize the presentation of a United
States flag upon retirement to uniformed members of the reserve
components, the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. The section would align the
entitlement concerning the uniformed service members indicated
above with the entitlement authorized for active duty members
by section 644 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261).
Section 654--Accrual Funding for Retirement System for Commissioned
Corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
This section would convert the present pay-as-you-go
retirement system for the NOAA officer corps to an accrual
accounting methodology. This would be achieved by integrating
the NOAA officer corps retirement system into the military
retirement system and requiring the Department of Commerce to
make annual payments into the Military Retirement Fund
representing the future cost of retirement for those officers
currently serving in NOAA. The committee believes this
initiative is a cost effective method to account for future
retirement costs.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 671--Payments for Unused Accrued Leave as Part of Reenlistment
This section would authorize enlisted members to receive
payment for unused accrued leave when reenlisting, regardless
of the timing of that reenlistment.
Section 672--Clarification of Per Diem Eligibility for Military
Technicians Serving on Active Duty Without Pay Outside the United
States
This section would clarify that military technicians
serving on active duty without pay while in civilian leave
status, as provided by section 1039 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106),
may be paid a per diem allowance in lieu of commutation for
subsistence and quarters.
Section 673--Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program
Section 1060a of title 10, United States Code, authorizes
the Secretary of Defense to provide supplemental food benefits
similar to those provided under the Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) program to members of the armed forces, their
families, and civilian employees of the armed forces residing
at overseas locations. The committee is disappointed that the
Secretary has not elected to implement a supplemental food
program at overseas locations.
This section would mandate that the Secretary of Defense
implement the program and allocate Department of Defense funds
to carry out the program. The section would require the
Secretary of Agriculture to provide technical assistance to the
Secretary of Defense.
Section 674--Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Uniformed
Services Retirees
This section would authorize the service secretaries to pay
a monthly allowance to military retirees with service connected
disabilities rated at 70 percent or greater. The section would
authorize the payment of $300 a month to retirees with
disabilities rated as 100 percent, $200 a month to retirees
with disabilities rated as 90 percent, and $100 a month to
retirees with disabilities rated as 80 percent or 70 percent.
Section 675--Tuition Assistance for Members Deployed in a Contingency
Operation
This section would authorize members serving in a
contingency operation and participating in an education program
to receive full payment of tuition expenses under the tuition
assistance program.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS
OVERVIEW
For the past two years, the committee has worked
aggressively to put into place a wide range of legislative
authorities and demonstration projects designed to stop the
erosion of health care benefits available to military
beneficiaries. Generally speaking, the committee is pleased
with the efforts undertaken by the Department of Defense to
take advantage of these authorities or to implement directed
changes.
The committee, however, is disturbed by the trend on the
part of the Department to ignore Congressional report due
dates. As a result, the committee is limited in its ability to
address some of the Department's most vexing problems. The
committee is particularly concerned that the Department failed
to produce a required report on the redesign of the
Department's pharmacy program by March 1, 1999. As a result,
the Department's pharmacy program remains uncoordinated,
potential savings are forfeited, portions of the beneficiary
population remain underserved, and the Department's at-risk
contractors continue to accrue unexpectedly high, and to date
unreimbursed, pharmacy costs. The Department's failure to
provide the required report in a timely manner notwithstanding,
the committee believes strongly that the status quo approach to
the TRICARE pharmacy benefit can no longer be tolerated.
Therefore, the committee provides specific direction to the
Department to begin improving the pharmacy system.
The committee also recognizes the need for some measure of
stability in the dynamic and continually evolving TRICARE
program. In the last two years in particular, the committee has
directed the Department to initiate several important
demonstration projects designed to improve access, control
costs, or otherwise improve the management of the military
health care system. These demonstrations continue apace. Other
demonstration projects are nearing their evaluation phase and
the committee awaits the prompt arrival of the reports on their
performance in meeting the intended goals.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
currently developing automated clinical practice guidelines
which proactively present information to caregivers, measure
guideline compliance and patient outcomes, and examine cost
benefits. This collaborative initiative has identified diabetes
management as its first focus of activity. Additional
guidelines will be automated for clinical conditions with the
potential to significantly reduce the cost of military and
civilian health care, and could substantially assist the
Department's prevention and health promotion programs. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to provide for
the funding of a collaborative automated clinical practice
guideline program.
Defense Health Program Unfunded Requirements
The committee recommends the following increases to provide
for unfunded requirements in the Defense Health Program: Army,
$1.0 million for real property maintenance; Navy, $5.0 million
for medical equipment and real property maintenance; and Air
Force, $4.0 million for private sector care.
Report on Portability of TRICARE Prime Benefits
A common theme among military health services beneficiaries
enrolled in the Prime option of the Department of Defense
TRICARE program is the lack of portability of their TRICARE
Prime benefits when they are temporarily out of their own
TRICARE provider network area and must seek care from a
different TRICARE contractor. While the committee appreciates
the need for actuarial stability in the management of the
TRICARE program, it is concerned that the Department has taken
little action to remedy this problem. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report by March 31, 2000 to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services on plans to improve the portability of the
TRICARE Prime benefit for those enrollees who are only
temporarily out of the TRICARE network in which they are
enrolled, but need to exercise their TRICARE Prime benefits.
Report on Preventive Healthcare Services
The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's
emphasis on Force Health Protection as a strategy for
maintaining the health of its uniformed service members. These
same strategies might help prevent many of the diseases and
injuries experienced by other military health services
beneficiaries and especially military family members. The
committee is disappointed that the Department cannot clearly
articulate the scope of preventive services programs available
to military health services beneficiaries.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report by March 1, 2000, to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services which
describes the scope of preventive health care benefits provided
to all eligible TRICARE beneficiaries. The report should
include a comparison of the Department of Defense preventive
health service benefit to the preventive health service
programs recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Academy of Family Physicians and the Agency for Health
Care Policy and Research. The report should also:
(1) Explain the Department's progress on implementing
the ``Put Prevention into Practice'' initiative set
forth in March 1998 for all military treatment
facilities;
(2) Describe the programs in place and those planned
for instructing the Department's health care providers
on the preventive health services benefits available to
TRICARE beneficiaries; and
(3) Describe the mechanisms for recording a
beneficiary's receipt of age-appropriate preventive
benefits, including electronic medical records, and any
improvements planned for these records.
Study on the Effect of TRICARE Cost Sharing on the Financial Status of
Enlisted Service Members in Pay Grades E-1 Through E-4
The committee is concerned that the cost sharing
requirements of the Department of Defense TRICARE program may
be creating or exacerbating financial burdens for some high
risk military families. However, the anecdotal evidence the
committee has received to date has not been supported by any
serious analysis of this potentially significant problem.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000, the report of a
study on the effect of TRICARE cost sharing through annual
deductible amounts and co-payments on the financial status of
enlisted members of the armed forces in pay grades E-1 through
E-4. At a minimum, the study should address:
(1) Whether it costs more to administer the system of
co-pays for the E-4 and below population than the
collected revenues from these co-pays themselves
generate;
(2) The effect on demand for health care services if
cost shares were reduced or eliminated for enlisted
personnel and their families in pay grades E1 to E4;
(3) The extent to which E-4s and below with family
members are at greater risk for financial problems as a
result of these cost sharing arrangements than other
similarly ranked enlisted personnel without families;
(4) The extent to which the Department of Defense
uses grade-differentiated payments for other, non-
health care services;
(5) The number of E4's and below on food stamps and
whether relief from cost sharing arrangements would
reduce that number; and
(6) Programs the services employ to assist
financially at risk families with paying the cost
sharing associated with use of some TRICARE services.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
Section 701--Provision of Health Care to Members on Active Duty at
Certain Remote Locations
This section would expand the provisions of the Department
of Defense TRICARE Remote program by allowing active duty
service members assigned to duties in areas remote from
military treatment facilities to receive care from designated
providers.
Section 702--Provision of Chiropractic Health Care
The chiropractic health care demonstration program being
conducted by the Department of Defense at 13 locations is
scheduled to end September 30, 1999. This section would direct
the Department to terminate the demonstration phase of the
program, complete data collection and analysis, submit the
report to the Congress as required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85).
This section would also accelerate the date the report is
required from May 1, 2000 to January 31, 2000. The committee
expects the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Oversight
Advisory Committee, established by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337),
shall be full participants in the collection and analysis of
data and preparation of the final report. The committee expects
the Department to make provisions for a minority report to be
forwarded as part of its final report if the Oversight Advisory
Committee deems it necessary. Additionally, this section would
direct the Department to maintain, as a minimum, the current
level and scope of chiropractic care services at the present
locations until at least September 30, 2000.
This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to
prepare and submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000, a
plan to implement chiropractic health services throughout the
military health services system beginning in fiscal year 2001
if this course of action is recommended in the final report on
the Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Project. The plan
should also address other chiropractic service options the
Secretary may recommend. The committee expects the Oversight
Advisory Committee would be full participants in the
development of the implementation plan.
Section 703--Continuation of Provision of Domiciliary and Custodial
Care for Certain CHAMPUS Beneficiaries
The Department of Defense has conducted a wide range of
health care demonstration programs under the general authority
provided in section 1092 of title 10, United States Code. Since
domiciliary and custodial care services are specifically
excluded as covered benefits by section 1076 of title 10,
United States Code, the Department has exercised this
demonstration authority to experiment with alternate strategies
for providing care to beneficiaries requiring those services.
Based on the results of several demonstration projects, the
Department has implemented a case management program which will
provide for the medical management of most persons who need
custodial or domiciliary care, while not establishing a de
facto benefit currently excluded in law. This section would
provide for the equitable treatment and protection of
approximately 25 beneficiaries who have been receiving
custodial care services through demonstration programs which
are due to expire and who will not be eligible for that care
under the Department's case management program.
Section 704--Removal of Restriction on Use of Funds for Abortions in
Cases of Rape or Incest
Under current law, funds available to the Department of
Defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term. This section would include among the abortions
funded by the Department those in which the pregnancy is the
result of an act of forcible rape or incest which has been
reported to a law enforcement agency.
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
Section 711--Improvements to Claims Processing under the TRICARE
Program
The committee received testimony from TRICARE contractors
and the General Accounting Office (GAO) which highlighted
significant provider and institutional claims processing
problems. While the Department of Defense's claims processing
contractors are doing a respectable job with small claims like
those for pharmacy prescriptions, the larger and more costly
claims from providers and institutions take too long to process
and often result in questionable payments. This section would
seek to correct such problems, and others, by directing the
Secretary of Defense to implement changes to the TRICARE claims
processing system recommended by GAO. The changes directed by
this section would also bring TRICARE claims processing more in
line with commercial best business practices and the procedures
used by Medicare. Additionally, when contracts are re-awarded
to other than the existing managed care support contractor,
this section would require additional contract start-up time to
ensure a smoother phase in of the new contract.
Section 712--Authority to Waive Certain TRICARE Deductibles
TRICARE eligible individuals and families are required to
pay certain amounts each year before TRICARE begins sharing the
cost of medical care. This payment, called the TRICARE
deductible, is accumulated on an annual basis without regard to
the amount of time spent on active duty by the sponsor. This
section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive the
TRICARE deductible requirement for the families of guardsmen
and reservists recalled to active duty for less than one year.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 721--Pharmacy Benefits Program
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105-261) directed the Secretary of Defense to
submit a plan by March 1, 1999, to the Congress that would
provide for a system-wide redesign of the Department of Defense
military and contractor retail and mail-order pharmacy system
by incorporating ``best business practices'' from the private
sector. The committee expected this report to describe how the
Department intended to implement a uniform formulary for
military medical treatment facilities, TRICARE contractors'
retail pharmacies, and the national mail-order pharmacy
program. Moreover, and despite committee cautions against it,
the Department proposed, as part of its fiscal year 2000
legislative proposal, extending Defense Acquisition and
Purchasing Agreement prices to pharmaceuticals dispensed by the
TRICARE contractors. In light of the Department's failure to
produce the requested report on comprehensive pharmacy reform
in a timely manner, the committee cannot agree to the
Department's request. Unfortunately, the report did not arrive
in time to serve any useful purpose to the committee this year.
However, the Department has moved forward with installation of
the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service. The committee is pleased
with this action and looks forward to similar action on the
other important parts of pharmacy reform including adoption of
a uniform formulary for all elements of the military health
system's pharmacy benefit. To that end, this section would
improve the committee's ability to oversee the Department's
pharmacy reform by requiring the Department to report
periodically on its efforts to improve management of the
military pharmacy system.
The committee is also disappointed to note that the
Secretary of Defense did not fully comply with Section 703 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105-261) which required a plan for redesign of the
military pharmacy system. Within this redesign, the Secretary
was to include a system-wide drug benefit for certain
beneficiaries who were entitled to care under chapter 55 of
title 10, United States Code, and under Part A and Part B of
title XVIII of the Social Security Act, otherwise known as
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. However this plan was not
transmitted to the Congress. It was the committee's intention
that the pharmacy redesign required by Section 721 of this bill
is a necessary precursor to any system-wide pharmacy benefit
for the Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Therefore, this
section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a
design of a comprehensive pharmacy benefit for these
beneficiaries to the Congress by April 15, 2001.
Section 722--Improvements to Third-Party Payer Collection Program
This section would make two changes to the third party
collection program under section 1095 of title 10, United
States Code, which allows military treatment facilities to
collect from health insurance carriers and other third party
payers. First, this section would allow Department of Defense
facilities to bill third party payers on reasonable charges.
These reasonable charges would be based on current payments
rates under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), which uses diagnosis related
group (DRG) based rates for inpatient care and CHAMPUS maximum
allowable charge (CMAC) rates for professional services. This
change would be consistent with similar changes implemented for
the Veterans Health Administration in 1997. The change would
also simplify and improve claims processing by permitting the
Department to bill for outpatient care on the same medical
procedure basis prevalent in the health insurance industry.
The second change made by this section would expand the
definition of ``third party payer'' to match the definition of
``other insurance'' in the CHAMPUS double coverage program.
This action would further coordinate military treatment
facility third party collection provisions and procedures with
those of the CHAMPUS counterpart.
Section 723--Authority of Armed Forces Medical Examiner to Conduct
Forensic Pathology Investigations
This section would clarify authorities of the Armed Forces
Medical Examiner (AFME) to conduct forensic pathology
investigations, including autopsies, in cases of deaths for
which the Department of Defense, or a supported agency, has
investigative responsibility. Sections 4711 and 9711 of title
10, United States Code, provide for investigations when a
person is found dead in a place garrisoned by Army or Air Force
personnel and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States. No similar authorities exist for the Navy or Marine
Corps. There also is no express authority for access to
evidence in the case of a military dependent overseas. This
section also ensures access by the AFME to evidence that might
not be available under current law and clarifies the
jurisdictional hierarchy in those cases in which primary
authority does not rest with the AFME.
Section 724--Trauma Training Center
Section 742 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) authorized the Department
of the Army to establish a Level 1 Trauma Training Center. The
committee is disappointed that the budget request did not
include funds to provide the Army with this much needed trauma
training capability. This section would once again recommend an
increase of $4.0 million in the Defense Health Program to
support the Army Medical Department in establishing a Trauma
Training Center up to Level 1.
Section 725--Study on Joint Operations for the Defense Health Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study of areas where the Defense Health Program could
improve its joint operations. This study shall be submitted to
the Congress by October 1, 2000.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 801--Sale, Exchange, and Waiver Authority for Coal and Coke
The committee is aware that section 2404 of title 10,
United States Code, provides the Secretary of Defense authority
to sell, exchange, or waive provisions of law in the purchase
of petroleum and natural gas when it would be in the public
interest to do so. The committee believes the rationale for
such authority equally applies to coal and coke. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision (sec. 801) that would amend
section 2404 of title 10, United States Code, to include coal
and coke.
Section 802--Extension of Authority to Issue Solicitations for
Purchases of Commercial Items in Excess of Simplified Acquisition
Threshold
This section would extend by three years the expiring pilot
authority to allow the application of simplified acquisition
procedures to commercial items below a $5 million threshold.
Section 803-Expansion of Applicability of Requirement to Make Certain
Procurements From Small Arms Production Industrial Base
This section would amend section 2473(d) of title 10,
United States Code, by adding the M2 and M60 machine guns to
the list of weapon systems included in the small arms
industrial base.
Section 804--Repeal of Termination of Provision of Credit Towards
Subcontracting Goals for Purchases Benefiting Severely Handicapped
Persons
This section would make permanent existing authority to
credit purchases from qualified nonprofit agencies for the
blind or the severely handicapped toward meeting subcontracting
goals for defense contractors.
Section 805--Extension of Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive
Small Business Subcontracting Plans
This section would extend by three years the expiring pilot
authority to allow Department of Defense prime contractors to
negotiate small and disadvantaged business subcontract plans
that establish goals for their participation in subcontracts
awarded by the prime contractor on a company-wide basis.
Section 806--Facilitation of National Missile Defense System
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with
the needed flexibility to proceed with production of a National
Missile Defense (NMD) system prior to the completion of formal
operational, test and evaluation requirements. The provision
would also require the Secretary to successfully complete
operational, test and evaluation of this system as soon as
practicable following the application of any such exemption.
The committee believes that the rapidly evolving long-range
missile threat demands expeditious deployment of a national
missile defense, and that authorizing the Secretary of Defense
to allow NMD production would provide the flexibility to
respond to these emerging threats. The committee expects that
any national missile defense system would undergo sufficient
ground and flight testing prior to a deployment decision to
provide the Department of Defense high confidence that the
system would perform effectively, whether or not initial
operational test and evaluation had been completed.
Section 807--Options for Accelerated Acquisition of Precision Munitions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
report to the Congressional defense committees existing
inventories of precision munitions against the requirements of
each of these munitions for two Major Theater Wars (MTW). For
those precision munitions whose inventories fall short of the
two-MTW requirement, the section would also direct the
Secretary to create teams of experts to recommend to him
options for accelerating their acquisition. Finally, the
section would further require the Secretary to report to the
Congressional defense committees his selected options for
acceleration and the Department's plan to implement these
options.
Section 808--Program to Increase Opportunity for Small Business
Innovation in Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a program to increase the opportunities for small
business companies with innovative technology to participate in
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND REFORM
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 901--Limitation on Amount Available for Contracted Advisory and
Assistance Services
The committee is aware the Department of Defense has
partially implemented section 911 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) and
made significant efforts to improve the management of both
Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) and miscellaneous
contract services object classifications. However, the
committee notes with concern that the report required by
section 911 has not been submitted. The committee is concerned
that prior year erroneous reporting of A&AS as miscellaneous
services has resulted in underreporting of A&AS and has
frustrated Congress' ability to fulfill its oversight
responsibilities in this area. The committee notes the dramatic
reductions within the budget request for fiscal year 2000 in
miscellaneous contract services at the same time A&AS has
increased $1.4 billion over last year's request.
While the committee continues to believe the Department's
acquisition structure is too large and costly, the committee
maintains its support for a technically proficient workforce.
Specifically, section 912 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) directed the
Secretary of Defense to evaluate the opportunities to improve
the capability of the acquisition system in fulfilling the
needs of the military services and agencies.
The committee contends many of the functions currently
performed by A&AS contracts can and should be performed within
the Department's acquisition structure. The committee further
believes such an approach would yield similar results with less
cost overall to the government. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 901) that would reduce A&AS
funding by $100.0 million in fiscal year 2000 and withhold an
additional 10 percent of A&AS funding until the Department
complies with the previously mentioned reporting requirement.
Section 902-Responsibility for Logistics and Sustainment Functions of
the Department of Defense
The committee is aware that the costs associated with
equipment logistics and sustainment support represents one of
the largest and fastest growing categories of expenditures
within the Department of Defense. During fiscal year 1999,
these types of logistics costs are estimated to exceed $80
billion. The committee believes that several factors, including
an aging inventory of weapons systems, increased operational
tempo, and underfunded modernization accounts will continue to
demand increased attention to the issues of logistics,
maintenance, materiel readiness, and sustainment support across
the Department.
To provide appropriate emphasis to this important
functional area, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
902) that would establish and clarify responsibility for
logistics and sustainment functions within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. First, the provision would rename the
current position of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, reflecting the increased importance
of the logistics function. The provision would also create the
new position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics
and Materiel Readiness to provide this function the
organizational stature and visibility that it deserves. The new
position would be subject to confirmation by the United States
Senate, a requirement intended to enhance the quality of the
individuals nominated for this job and increase congressional
oversight of this critical area.
The committee believes that, among other duties assigned by
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, the Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and
Material Readiness must address such critical areas as
establishing policies regarding life-cycle, sustainment support
of weapons systems and combat support equipment, as well as
policies regarding the logistics systems and facilities
necessary to provide such support. The committee strongly
believes that competition and public-private partnerships are
important tools for reducing costs and improving efficiency. As
such, the Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and Material
Readiness would be responsible for policies regarding the
acquisition of services to support the above requirements and
to promote a competitive environment for the provision of
sustainment services, while preserving a cost efficient, core
capability within the Department of Defense that ensures the
military readiness of weapons systems, combat support equipment
and other critical materiel. In addition, the Deputy Under
Secretary for Logistics and Material Readiness would fill a
vital role in the review and approval of logistics support and
sustainment plans for current and future weapon systems and
combat support equipment, including necessary materiel
acquisition and modifications to ensure cost effectiveness
while protecting military readiness.
Section 903--Management Headquarters and Headquarters Support
Activities
The committee remains troubled by the lack of compliance of
the Department of Defense with section 911 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85) that mandates annual reductions in management headquarters
personnel. The General Accounting Office (GAO), in a February
1999 report, stated that ``DOD does not have a plan to reduce
management headquarters and headquarters support personnel DOD-
wide by 25 percent by the end of fiscal year 2002, as required
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1998.'' The committee reiterates its strong support for the
statutorily required personnel reductions.
The committee notes that the Department has made progress
in complying with the submission of reports on management
headquarters as required in section 904 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) and
section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). Furthermore, the
committee is aware that the Department has recognized the
current management headquarters personnel directive is
inadequate and that proposed revisions to the directive in
question have been drafted. The committee believes the existing
directive dramatically understates the actual size of the
Department's management headquarters. In its February 1999
report on management headquarters, GAO stated ``In our review
of selected subordinate organizations, nearly three of every
four of them were primarily performing management or
headquarters support functions and should have been reported to
Congress by DOD.''
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 903)
that would require the Department to implement a revised
directive, to be applied uniformly throughout the Department,
that accounts for management headquarters personnel by function
rather than organization.
Section 904--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and Support
Workforce
The committee continues to believe that the Department of
Defense must significantly reorganize and streamline its
acquisition structure for the purposes of reducing overhead and
improving interoperability and jointness among the military
services. The committee has pressed the Department for years to
produce an implementation plan to achieve the aforementioned
objectives but has been disappointed with the result. While the
Defense Science Board (DSB), in response to section 912 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85), produced a report that identified a variety of
opportunities for realignment of the defense acquisition
system, the Department has committed only to study the DSB's
findings rather than to implement any of its recommendations.
The committee strongly believes the Department must make broad
organizational changes to its acquisition structure, including
adoption of a smaller, more flexible workforce. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision (sec. 904) that would reduce
the defense acquisition workforce, as defined in section 931(d)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105-261), by a total of 25,000 in fiscal year 2000.
Section 905--Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
This section would establish a Center for the Study of
Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense University. In
the committee's judgment, the establishment of such a center is
an essential element for assessing what will be a central
strategic relationship for the United States in the coming
century. China's sustained economic growth, expanding security
interests, growing military power, and historical importance
would make it a worthy subject of constant Department of
Defense study under any conditions. However, the increasingly
tense relations between the People's Republic of China and the
United States in recent years seems to underscore the
requirement for such a center.
Currently, the Department of Defense lacks an organization
whose primary mission is to provide comprehensive analysis and
promote broader understanding of Chinese military affairs and
strategy. The primary mission of the Asia-Pacific Center, by
contrast, is to engage with the officer corps of Asian military
forces and to help inculcate American values such as civilian
control of the military. In the committee's judgment, the Asia-
Pacific Center is not structured to provide the needed
perspectives on Chinese military affairs, has a broader
purpose, and is not well sited to provide senior policy-makers
with timely analysis. Moreover, few in the academic or
intelligence community combine knowledge of military affairs
and strategy with a genuine expertise in Chinese language,
history, and culture. The committee intends that the
establishment of a Center for the Study of Chinese Military
Affairs should begin to provide the Department of Defense with
a critical capability not currently available.
Section 906--Responsibility Within Office of the Secretary of Defense
for Monitoring OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
monitor personnel tempo and operations tempo of the armed
services. It also directs the Secretary work toward a common
definition to measure personnel tempo and operations tempo to
the maximum extent practicable in order to have a more accurate
measurement system.
The committee notes that that to date, there has been no
single standard within the Department of Defense (DOD) used to
measure personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) and operations tempo
(OPTEMPO). Currently, service cultures, mission
characteristics, deployment timelines, and sustainment
requirements account for most of the differences in service
definitions and hamper efforts to establish a universal
definition. Difficulties arise in evaluating PERSTEMPO
measurements because each service defines levels of unit and
individual activity differently and they each have a different
definition of what constitutes high activity. Deployments are
also defined differently by each service; for example training
rotations to the National Training Center do not figure in the
Army's measurement of deployments yet are clearly an activity
that contributes to PERSTEMPO. According to a 1996 Government
Accounting Office report titled Military Readiness: A Clear
Policy is Needed to Guide Management of Frequently Deployed
Units:
It is difficult for DOD to determine the actual time
that either military personnel or their units are
deployed. This information is important to planning and
managing contingency operations. Although all services
now have systems to measure PERSTEMPO, each service has
different (1) definitions of what constitutes a
deployment, (2) policies or guidance for the length of
time units or personnel should be deployed, and (3)
systems for tracking deployments.
The committee believes that a common definition is
essential to present a more accurate evaluation and management
of the PERSTEMPO and OPTEMPO problem.
Section 907--Report on Military Space Issues
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate
Armed Services Committee by March 1, 2000 a report on U.S.
military space policy.
The committee believes that the future security environment
will be marked by profound technological change that will
transform the conduct of war. This transformation will
necessitate a fuller integration of land, air, sea, and space
operations. The committee believes that the Department of
Defense must be appropriately organized to exploit fully the
opportunities offered by this transformation, and directs the
Secretary to address in this report current and projected U.S.
efforts to fully exploit space in preparation for possible
conflicts in 2010 and beyond.
Section 908--Employment and Compensation of Civilian Faculty Members of
Department of Defense African Center for Strategic Studies
This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
hire civilian faculty members for the EUCOM African Center for
Strategic Studies.
Section 909--Additional Matters for Annual Report on Joint Warfighting
Experimentation
This section would add to the matters to be discussed in
the annual report on joint warfighting experimentation
established section 435(b) of title 10, United States Code. The
committee believes that it is appropriate to take
recommendations gleaned from insights resulting from joint
warfighting experimentation into consideration when joint
requirements are established.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Overview
The committee notes with concern the many challenges
confronting the Department of Defense counter-drug program in
fiscal year 2000. With the planned closure of Howard Air Force
Base in Panama as a result of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, the
United States will lose a premier airfield for conducting
counter-drug aerial detection and monitoring missions. To
ensure the Department of Defense complies with its tasking by
the National Drug Control Strategy to provide detection and
monitoring support to U.S. law enforcement, U.S. Southern
Command has spearheaded an initiative to base reconnaissance
and support aircraft at four locations throughout the source
and transit zones, notably Ecuador, Curacao, Aruba, and
eventually Costa Rica. The implementation of the Canal Treaty
has additionally necessitated the realignment of the Joint
Interagency Task Force--South, previously located in Panama, to
Key West, Florida where it has merged with the Joint
Interagency Task Force--East. Notwithstanding these challenges,
the committee is hopeful that the near-term initial operating
capability of the Relocatable Over-The-Horizon Radar based in
Puerto Rico will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the
interagency effort to curtail the flow of illegal narcotics
into the United States.
The committee remains deeply concerned that the eastern
Pacific Ocean continues to be an under-resourced transit area
for detection and monitoring assets despite its increased usage
by drug traffickers. To address this problem, last year the
committee recommended the restoration of a promising program
known as Caper Focus intended to disrupt the eastern Pacific
drug flow. While $10.5 million was authorized and $6.0 million
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for Caper Focus,
implementation has unfortunately been slow and no maritime
patrol aircraft have been dedicated to the program in fiscal
year 1999 as required in section 1023(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261). The committee finds this lack of progress unacceptable
and directs the Department to execute this program as
expeditiously and effectively as possible.
The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year
2000 contained $788.1 million for drug interdiction and
counter-drug activities, in addition to $166.5 million for
operational tempo which is included within the operating
budgets of the military services. This represents a net
increase of $60.5 million from the fiscal year 1999 budget
request of $727.6 million, and an increase of $11.2 million for
operational tempo from the fiscal year 1999 request of $155.3
million. The committee understands that the increase is
attributed to realignment activities required by implementation
of the Panama Canal Treaty and specifically the establishment
of forward operating locations.
The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year
2000 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
FY99 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request................. 788,100
Educate America's Youth................................... 16,800
Increase Safety of Citizens............................... 82,900
Reduce Health & Social Costs.............................. 72,200
Shield America's Frontiers................................ 327,400
Break Drug Sources of Supply.............................. 288,800
Recommended Decreases:
Tethered Aerostat Radar System (Project #4110). 8,800
Air National Guard Fighter Operations (Project #7404)..... 4,000
Costa Rica FOL (Project #9500)................................ 6,700
Recommended Increases:
Operation Caper Focus..................................... 6,000
Wide Aperture Radar Facility.............................. 17,500
Southwest Border Fence.................................... 6,000
Joint Interagency Task Force-West......................... 1,000
Other Joint Military Intelligence Programs................ 8,000
P-3 Forward Looking Infrared Radars....................... 2,700
Observation Aircraft...................................... 8,000
Ground Based Radar in Tres Esquinas, Colombia............. 10,000
Mothership Operations..................................... 5,000
C-130 Sensor Packages..................................... 15,000
Program Transfers:
Forward Operating Locations (Military Construction)....... 36,100
Recommendation............................................ 811,700
Items of Special Interest
Air National Guard fighter operations
The committee is concerned with the usage of Air National
Guard F-16s in support of the counter-drug mission. While the
committee recognizes the value of forward deployed alert
interceptors for quick reaction and early identification of
suspected drug trafficking aircraft, the committee does not
believe premier tactical fighter aircraft are appropriate for
such missions. Rather, the committee supports the transfer of
the intercept mission to the United States Customs Service
which operates aircraft more optimally suited to the mission.
The committee notes the high operational tempo throughout the
fighter community in part due to ongoing world-wide
contingencies. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease
of $4.0 million in this program.
Colombian detection and monitoring
The committee recognizes the value of increased airborne
surveillance over Colombia, the world's leading producer of
cocaine, in the overall effort to reduce the flow of narcotics
into the United States. Through enhanced monitoring of coca
fields and production sites in Colombia, timely and actionable
intelligence can be relayed to Colombian government forces for
seizure and eradication purposes. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the operation of
leased observation aircraft to be based and operated in
Colombia. Additionally, the committee notes the need to improve
aerial surveillance in the vicinity of Tres Esquinas, Colombia,
a major coca cultivation area. The committee supports the
establishment of a ground based radar in Tres Esquinas to
assist in Colombia's interdiction program and recommends an
increase of $10.0 million for this purpose.
Joint interagency task force-West
The committee is aware that the Joint Interagency Task
Force-West (JIATF-West) retains an insufficient intelligence
capability focused on narcotics and money laundering in
Southwest Asia, notably Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Southeast
Asia, specifically Burma and China. In addition, the committee
recognizes that JIATF-West is significantly under-resourced to
provide adequate tactical and strategic intelligence with
regard to its increased responsibility for counter-drug and
interdiction activities in the Eastern Pacific and Mexico.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $1.0 million
to support these intelligence shortfalls.
Other joint military intelligence programs
The committee is aware that the effectiveness of operation
Caper Focus has been degraded by the shortage of maritime
patrol aircraft in the eastern Pacific transit zone. The
committee understands that a fully operational Wide Aperture
Radar Facility could provide the same radar capability against
low altitude light aircraft as approximately five P-3B's with
radar domes. The committee notes the many pressing world-wide
demands placed upon DOD aircraft and flight crews and strongly
believes that any defense resources used in the counter-drug
effort should be used to their fullest potential. However, the
committee is aware that many of the Department's detection and
monitoring flights yield little, if any, actionable information
on narcotics production and transportation. The committee
contends DOD assets can and should be more optimally utilized
in the war on drugs and believes enhanced signals intelligence
and collections programs could improve the overall
effectiveness of the DOD counter-drug effort. The budget
request contained $12.9 million for four valuable signals
intelligence, collections, and translation support programs
designed to assist in the disruption of drug flow within source
and transit zones. The committee believes these programs are
funded below the levels necessary to achieve their stated
objectives. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$8.0 million for programs within the Joint Military
Intelligence Program. A discussion of these programs is located
in the classified annex accompanying this report.
Requirement for report on forward operating locations
The committee remains concerned about the effectiveness of
counter-drug detection and monitoring activities in the source
and transit zones in light of the cessation of U.S. military
operations in Panama. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Department of Defense to submit to Congress, no later than July
1, 2000, a report detailing the status of negotiations
regarding the formal agreements on each of the proposed Forward
Operating Locations (FOL) and the infrastructure and
operational requirements of each FOL. The report shall also
include an analysis of the feasibility and effectiveness of
resuming, after fiscal year 2000, the counter-narcotics mission
from bases in Panama, should the government of Panama consent
to renewed U.S. military presence in its country.
Southwest border fence
The committee remains concerned with the continued
smuggling of narcotics across the Southwest border in the San
Diego County, California region. Recognizing the continuing
presence and operations of a major drug cartel located in
proximity to the border, the committee believes that existing
fence and road-building operations must continue. The committee
notes the success of the previous fence projects in preventing
much of the unimpeded, vehicular drug-smuggling that prevailed
in the region as recently as five years ago. Therefore, the
committee recommends $6.0 million for the continuation of the
construction of a 14 mile, multiple-barrier fence and primary
border fence in addition to patrol roads immediately adjacent
to the Southwest border in the vicinity of San Diego County,
California.
Tethered aerostat radar system
The committee has long been aware of the operational
difficulties involved with the aerostat program. Specifically,
the committee understands that minimal counter-drug detection
and monitoring capability is provided by the aerostat program
along the Southwest border. The committee is aware that the
budget request for the aerostat program contains an increase of
$8.8 million over the previous year for purposes of upgrading
existing aerostats as well as purchasing spares. The committee
believes such decisions should be postponed pending the review
by the Secretary of Defense of the Wide Aperture Radar Facility
capability that would be required by April 15, 2000 pursuant to
section 1021 of this bill. Therefore, the committee recommends
a decrease of $8.8 million in the aerostat program.
Transfer of military construction funding for forward operating
locations
The committee notes the budget request for Department of
Defense counter-drug activities contained $36.1 million for
military construction for forward operating locations at Manta,
Ecuador and Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. Consistent with the
established statutory framework for military construction, the
committee recommends the transfer of $36.1 million from the
Central Transfer Account to Military Construction, Defense-
Wide.
Transit zone detection and monitoring
The committee is concerned with the continued exploitation
of the Caribbean Sea corridor by narcotics traffickers. The
committee is aware that 32 percent of the cocaine destined for
the United States in 1998 was shipped through the Caribbean, of
which 85 percent moved by maritime means. The committee
supports a strong maritime detection and monitoring program in
the Caribbean and recommends $15.0 million to operate and
configure two C-130 aircraft for ocean surveillance purposes.
Additionally, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for so-called Mothership Operations and $2.7 million
for upgrading the forward looking infrared radar capability of
three Navy P-3 aircraft.
Other Matters
Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
The committee continues to recognize that the threat of
terrorist activity within the United States, including the use
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is a potentially serious
one and continues to support efforts to enhance domestic
preparedness against this threat. Numerous federal agencies
have a role to play in combating this threat, including the
Department of Defense (DOD).
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2000 budget
request for counterterrorism activities across the federal
government exceeds the fiscal year 1999 levels by 14 percent,
excluding additional amounts provided in the fiscal year 1999
Omnibus Appropriations bill. Likewise, the requested amount for
combating WMD terrorism reflects a 13 percent increase,
excluding supplemental funding, above the fiscal year 1999
appropriated base levels. For the national security community,
including the Department, the budget request reflects a 7
percent increase for counterterrorism activities and a 40
percent increase in WMD counterterrorism efforts over the
fiscal year 1999 base amounts. This increase is intended
largely for domestic preparedness capabilities such as training
and equipment for state and local ``first responders,'' and
research and development efforts that have potential
applications to civilian domestic preparedness. The committee
addresses the research and development portion of the request
elsewhere in this report.
The committee recalls that Presidential Decision Directive
62 stresses the need for greater coordination of federal
efforts to deal with the consequences of WMD terrorism. To this
end, the Congress mandated the creation of a National
Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and
Counterterrorism to oversee this effort as part of the Defense
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (title XIV of
Public Law 104-201). Unfortunately, despite the federal
government's attempts to consolidate and better coordinate
counterterrorism efforts among the various federal, state, and
local agencies involved in this mission, substantial confusion
remains over the appropriate agency roles. As a November 1998
report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded, the
individual efforts among federal agencies to coordinate an
effective approach to consequence management ``are not guided
by an overarching strategy.'' The result has been an apparent
piecemeal, uncoordinated approach to this issue.
Congress has taken several actions to improve the
coordination and integration of the domestic preparedness
program. As part of ``The Domestic Emergency Preparedness Act
of 1998'' of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), the Congress required the
President to increase the effectiveness of domestic emergency
response preparedness programs at the federal, state, and local
levels and to report to the Congress on the actions taken to
develop an integrated program to respond to terrorist incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction. Section 1051 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85), as amended by section 1403 of Public Law 105-261,
required the President to provide a report on government
expenditures to combat terrorism and terrorist incidents
involving WMD. In addition, the committee notes that the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the
fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill (H. Rept. 105-405)
required the Attorney General in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
the Treasury, the Director of the FBI, and the Director of
Central Intelligence to develop and submit to the Congress a
Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime
Plan, which would be updated annually and serve as a baseline
strategy for coordination of national policy and operational
capabilities to combat terrorism in the United States and
against American interests overseas. These reports have
provided the Congress with greater insight into the
government's overall plan for combating terrorism and appear to
reflect a good-faith effort to address the lack of an
overarching strategy identified by GAO.
In its support role to other federal agencies, the
Department of Defense has provided expertise, equipment, and
training to first responders in communities nationwide, and has
assumed the role of lead federal agency with respect to this
program since its inception as part of its responsibilities
under Public Law 104-201. The committee notes the Department's
intention to transfer this program to the Department of Justice
by October 1, 2000, which will at that time assume lead federal
agency funding and program responsibilities.
Although the committee has encouraged the Department of
Defense to accelerate its efforts to build a comprehensive and
coordinated plan for integrating its program into the overall
federal counterterrorism effort, progress has been slow. The
Department is examining ways to improve its support to civil
authorities in response to a WMD-related terrorist incident.
One option being considered is standing up a Joint Task Force
to plan, fund, and coordinate DOD support for consequence
management activities. However, a number of issues related to
implementation of such an option remain to be decided within
the Department. Moreover, the committee notes that the
Department's budget includes funding to support five National
Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams, in
addition to the 10 RAID teams already previously authorized.
Consistent with section 511 of Public Law 105-261, the
committee would expect to receive a separate legislative
request from the Department to increase the statutory limit on
the number of National Guard full-time personnel in support of
the RAID teams. Finally, the committee notes that although the
Congress mandated that the report required by section 1402 of
Public Law 105-261 be a Presidential report, authority for its
preparation was delegated to the Department by the National
Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and
Counterterrorism. This suggests additional confusion over the
role of the National Coordinator and the overall federal
government coordination effort.
The committee believes that the Department should continue
to play a critical support role in the overall counterterrorism
effort, but remains troubled by the difficulties in
coordination and implementation noted above. The committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to make greater efforts to
ensure that the Department's support to this effort is
thoroughly coordinated and effective.
Department of Defense Responsiveness to Congressional Questions for the
Record
The committee is concerned over the Department of Defense's
inadequate responsiveness to questions for the record submitted
as a result of hearings. The committee finds the Department's
current level of compliance with the request to provide timely
and complete answers to be unacceptable and a serious
impediment to the committee's commitment to produce timely,
complete, and accurate records of these proceedings for public
and official use. The committee also notes that attempts to
address this matter with the Department have not led to any
perceptible improvement. In fact, this problem has persisted
for several years without regard to the committee's continued
interest in resolving it.
The committee reminds the Department that a continued lack
of confidence in the ability of the committee to secure
requested information that may be not immediately available to
a Department witnesses could lead to a need to resort to a more
formal process for securing information from the Department.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to closely examine
how the Department currently tracks and manages the committee's
questions for the record with the intent of making the
necessary changes to ensure more timely and complete
compliance. The committee stands ready to work with the
Secretary to arrive at a mutually acceptable process that
ensures that the information requested is provided in a manner
that addresses the committee's needs without unduly increasing
the Department's administrative burden.
Illegal Immigration to Guam
The committee is aware that Guam faces an increasing influx
of illegal immigrants from the People's Republic of China.
While 600 illegal aliens were apprehended in Guam last year,
this year, in the past four months alone, over 700 have been
apprehended and detained. Through May 1999, sixteen ships have
made their way to Guam carrying an average of 50 to 100 illegal
immigrant passengers each. The United States Coast Guard, with
the assistance of the United States Navy, has interdicted less
than half of these ships. The Coast Guard has led this effort
despite having a single C-130 aircraft and two boats. The
committee notes that the Navy has managed to provide assistance
to this mission despite the diversion of military assets to the
Balkans. The committee commends both of these services for
their response to this difficult problem and supports and
encourages continued cooperation in this effort.
Pentagon Reservation Renovation Security Upgrades
The Department of Defense has brought to the attention of
the committee the need for improved physical security at the
Pentagon Reservation. Given recent world events as well as the
physical dimensions, geographic location and size of the
workforce of the Pentagon, increasing the level of security
poses significant challenges. The committee believes that in
addition to ongoing initiatives being undertaken to increase
security in and around the Pentagon, two additional initiatives
identified by the Department should be incorporated into
ongoing renovation efforts. Accordingly, the committee supports
the construction of more secure secretarial office and support
facilities and security related changes to the Pentagon
Reservation subway entrance. The committee recommends that
these new security upgrades be incorporated in the Pentagon
Renovation and Maintenance Program and understands that the
Department plans to pay for these two initiatives from within
existing Pentagon renovation funds. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees revised cost adjustments for the planning, design,
construction and installation of equipment for the Pentagon by
January 1, 2000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--Transfer Authority
This section would permit the transfer of amounts of
authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any
fiscal year to any other authorization made available in
Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that
such a transfer would be in the national interest. The
provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming
involving the transfer of authorization between amounts
authorized as set out in bill language.
The authority to transfer could only be used to provide
authorization for higher priority items than the items from
which authorization was transferred and could not be used to
provide authorization for an item that was denied authorization
by the Congress. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
notify the Congress promptly of transfers. The total amount of
transfers would be limited to $2.0 billion. Historically, the
transfer authority authorized has changed as follows:
[By fiscal years; in billions of dollars]
1985-88........................................................... $2.00
1989-91........................................................... 3.00
1992.............................................................. 2.25
1993.............................................................. 1.50
1994-99........................................................... 2.00
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex
This section would incorporate the classified annex
prepared by the Committee on Armed Services into the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
Section 1003--Authorization of Prior Emergency Military Personnel
Appropriations
This section would extend authorization to prior emergency
military pay and benefits appropriations provided in section
2012 of the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental
appropriations act.
Section 1004--Repeal of Requirement for Two-Year Budget Cycle for the
Department of Defense
This section would repeal the requirement for the
Department of Defense to submit a detailed two-year budget in
the first session of each Congress.
Section 1005--Consolidation of Various Department of the Navy Trust and
Gift Funds
This section would amend certain sections of title 10,
United States Code, to allow consolidation of five Department
of the Navy gift and trust funds into two funds, in order to
manage the funds more efficiently and reduce administrative
costs.
Section 1006--Budgeting for Operations in Yugoslavia
The committee has long been concerned with the significant
drain that the conduct of under or unbudgeted contingency
operations has had and continues to have on the Department of
Defense's resources and budgets. Beginning with Somalia and
continuing to present day operations in the Former Yugoslavia,
the Administration continues to deploy military forces at an
unprecedented rate, while often failing to properly budget for
such operations in advance. This unfortunate practice has
exacerbated already serious quality of life, readiness, and
modernization shortfalls in the President's defense budgets and
has also led to the diversion of a significant percentage of
additional funds the Congress has authorized and appropriated
for critical defense shortfalls over the past four years to pay
for unbudgeted contingency and peacekeeping operations.
The committee and the Congress have repeatedly attempted to
address this problem over the past several years and have
adopted a number of provisions designed to induce the
Administration to more properly manage the costs and budgeting
of unplanned or unbudgeted contingency operations. In 1995, the
House-passed version of H.R. 1530, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, contained a number of
provisions restricting the ability of the Department of Defense
to use funds authorized for the Department's baseline
operations to pay for contingency operations, requiring instead
that the President seek supplemental appropriations to pay for
such operations. In 1997, the Congress approved and the
President enacted in two different bills, section 1203 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85) and section 8132 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-56),
provisions restricting the use of the Department's baseline
operations funds to pay for the costs of the then-anticipated
commitment of U.S ground forces for peacekeeping operations in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both provisions required the President to
submit a supplemental appropriations request to pay for any
unbudgeted costs of Bosnia peacekeeping operations. In 1998,
the Congress once again included and the President enacted a
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999 (section 1004 of Public Law 105-261) that was
likewise intended to protect the baseline operations budget of
the Department from being used to pay for any unbudgeted costs
of contingency and peacekeeping operations. This provision
recognized that the budget request for the coming fiscal year
(fiscal year 1999) contained funds necessary to conduct such
operations, but restricted the Department's ability to exceed
the requested amount and required the submission of a
supplemental appropriations request if the costs of the
operation were determined to exceed the authorized amount.
At present, the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization are entering the third month of hostilities
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The committee notes
that the Administration's declared policy is quite likely to
result in continued military operations--either combat or
peacekeeping--in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia next fiscal
year. However, the committee further notes that the budget
request contains no funds for either combat or peacekeeping
operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia next fiscal
year.
Consistent with the committee's longstanding efforts to
protect the Department's baseline operations budget from being
used to pay for unbudgeted operations, the committee recommends
a provision (sec. 1006) that would prohibit the use of the
funds authorized for appropriation by this bill for the conduct
of combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia during fiscal year 2000. In the event that military
operations are conducted in Yugoslavia next fiscal year, the
provision would require that the President submit to the
Congress a supplemental appropriations request to pay for the
costs of any such operations. The committee notes, consistent
with current and past direction on how the Administration
should budget and account for the costs of contingency
operations, that the provision's limitation applies only to
incremental costs and not to costs for which the Department
would otherwise already be obligated or programmed to pay.
The committee recommends this provision as a matter of
fiscal management and is not rendering judgment on the merit of
the Administration's current Yugoslavia policy or on the merit
of any potential combat or peacekeeping operation in Yugoslavia
in the future. With this provision the committee intends only
to ensure that the funds authorized by this bill are applied
against the Department's baseline operations as provided in the
President's budget request and as subsequently authorized by
the committee. The committee believes that the spending
authorized in this bill to address serious quality of life,
readiness, and modernization shortfalls that continue to plague
the U.S. military must be spent for the intended purposes and
not diverted to pay for the costs of unbudgeted operations.
Consistent with a number of previous initiatives, the committee
believes that the incremental costs associated with military
operations in Yugoslavia during fiscal year 2000 should be paid
for with funds that are in addition to those authorized by this
bill.
The committee notes that senior Administration officials
have, on numerous occasions, indicated an intent to submit an
amendment to the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request to
pay for the costs of any future military operations in
Yugoslavia. In the event that combat or peacekeeping operations
are likely to occur next fiscal year, the committee urges the
President to submit a budget amendment in time for the
Congressional defense committees to address any policy and
budgetary issues as part of their deliberations on the fiscal
year 2000 defense authorization and appropriations bills.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1011--Revision to Congressional Notice-and-Wait
Period Required Before Transfer of a Vessel Stricken from Naval
Vessel Register
This section would modify the requirement that sixty days
of continuous session of Congress transpire before transfer of
a naval vessel to thirty days.
Section 1012--Authority to Consent to Retransfer of Former Naval Vessel
This section would permit the President to consent to the
retransfer of a former U.S. naval vessel from the government of
Greece to the USS LST Memorial, Inc., a not-for-profit
organization, for use as a memorial.
Section 1013--Report on Naval Vessel Force Structure Requirements
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on the naval vessel force structure required to
carry out the National Military Strategy and the force
structure that is provided for in the President's budget for
fiscal year 2001.
Section 1014--Auxiliary Vessels Acquisition Program for the Department
of Defense
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
contract for the long-term lease or charter of newly
constructed surface vessels. Such leases or charters would
apply to the Navy's combat logistics force and strategic
sealift programs, as well as other auxiliary support vessels of
the Department of Defense.
Section 1015--Authority to Provide Advance Payments for the National
Defense Features Program
This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United
States Code, to permit advance payments for the modification
and life-cycle maintenance costs of National Defense Features
(NDF) program vessels. This change would make the financing
practices of the NDF consistent with those of the Civil Reserve
Air Fleet program.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities
Section 1021--Support for Detection and Monitoring Activities in the
Eastern Pacific Ocean
The committee remains deeply concerned with the lack of
detection and monitoring assets in the eastern Pacific Ocean
despite the large volume of cocaine that moves through the
area. The committee notes the continuing lack of adequate
maritime patrol aircraft to implement operation Caper Focus in
fiscal year 1999 as required. The committee continues to
support an aggressive program to disrupt narcotics trafficking
in the eastern Pacific area and therefore recommends a
provision (sec. 1021) that would provide $6.0 million to
continue this valuable program.
The committee understands that an additional Over-The-
Horizon Radar (OTHR) located in the United States could provide
adequate coverage of the eastern Pacific transit area. The
committee is aware that a test bed OTHR facility known as the
Wide Aperture Radar Facility (WARF) exists in southern
California that could be operationalized for use in detecting
and tracking both air and maritime targets in the eastern
Pacific and Mexico. The committee believes this capability will
greatly enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies of both
the United States and Mexico to interdict and disrupt shipments
of narcotics destined for the United States.
The committee is aware that the effectiveness of operation
Caper Focus has been degraded by the shortage of maritime
patrol aircraft in the eastern Pacific transit zone. The
committee understands that a fully operational Wide Aperture
Radar Facility could provide the same radar capability against
low altitude light aircraft as approximately five P-3B's with
radar domes. Moreover, an operational WARF is approximately
five times more cost-effective than maritime patrol aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1021)
that would provide $17.5 million to modify WARF from research
to operational status and perform all-weather, 24-hour-a-day
coverage of light aircraft movements in the eastern Pacific,
Mexico, and along the Southwest border. In addition, the
provision would direct WARF to conduct testing to validate its
capability against ``go fast'' boats and other maritime craft.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
report to Congress on the effectiveness of the WARF in these
areas by April 15, 2000. Finally, the provision would direct
the Department of the Air Force to make available the use of
two currently mothballed Over-The-Horizon-Backscatter (OTH-B)
Continental 100 KW transmitters and available spare parts for
use at the WARF facility. The committee notes that two such
transmitters were located at the southern California facility
from 1986-1988 for purposes of cruise missile tests and that
significant structural modifications were made to the facility
at that time.
Section 1022--Condition on Development of Forward Operating Locations
for United States Southern Command Counter-Drug Detection and
Monitoring Flights
The committee remains concerned by the loss of Howard Air
Force Base in Panama as a premier staging area for the conduct
of counter-drug detection and monitoring flights. While the
committee generally supports the U.S. Southern Command's
forward operating location (FOL) concept to forward base
aircraft in the region, the committee is concerned that the
budget request does not accurately represent the costs
associated with the establishment of the four proposed FOLs.
Specifically, the committee is aware that the U.S. Southern
Command and the Department of the Air Force have undertaken a
series of site surveys but have not reached a consensus as to
the total costs to improve the capabilities of the airfield
facilities in Ecuador, Curacao, or Aruba to necessary
specifications. In addition, the committee is aware that FOL
discussions with the government of Costa Rica were
significantly delayed pending the signing of a bilateral
maritime counter-drug agreement with the United States.
Accordingly, it appears highly unlikely that the budget request
for $6.7 million for infrastructure improvements to the
airfield at Liberia, Costa Rica can be executed in fiscal year
2000. Therefore, the committee recommends redirecting the
funding in question to higher priority counter-drug programs
and has included a provision (sec. 10X) that would prohibit the
expenditure of funds for the purpose of improving physical
infrastructure at any forward operating location until a formal
agreement is signed by both the host nation and the United
States.
The committee strongly believes the forward operating
location concept should remain expeditionary in nature and
involve minimal infrastructure improvements except as necessary
to ensure mission requirements, adequate quality of life and
force protection for U.S. military personnel. Therefore, to the
extent practicable, the Department of Defense should endeavor
to maximize the local host nation facilities in the way of
housing, food service, medical care, and aircraft service
support. Implementation of an effective National Drug Control
Strategy requires the full cooperation of all involved U.S.
agencies and the committee expects that the United States
Customs Service can and should play a larger role in the source
zone detection and monitoring mission as it expands its fleet
of P-3 reconnaissance aircraft.
Section 1023--United States Military Activities in Colombia
The committee is aware of the growing presence of U.S.
military personnel in Colombia as part of a coordinated
bilateral counter-drug program. The Secretary of Defense
recently committed the Department of Defense to train and
partially equip an unusually large Colombian army battalion of
up to 950 soldiers with the stated intention of conducting
counter-drug operations. The committee understands that the
number of U.S. military personnel associated with training
Colombian counter-drug forces is projected to increase. While
the committee supports more direct involvement by the Colombian
government in the war on drugs, the committee is concerned with
the expanding role of the U.S. military in domestic Colombian
affairs. The committee notes that Colombia has become a major
recipient of military hardware assistance and training
ostensibly for counter-drug purposes at the same time the
government of Colombia is engaged in a protracted war against a
wide-scale guerrilla insurgency. The committee is concerned
that counter-drug training and assistance provided by the
Department of Defense to Colombian forces may be redirected or
used for non-counter-drug activities.
The committee supports continued U.S. cooperation with the
government of Colombia to stem the flow of illegal drugs into
the United States but remains concerned over the prospect of
U.S. military personnel being drawn into Colombia's civil war.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1023)
that would require the Department of Defense to provide an
annual report to the Congress detailing the number of U.S.
military personnel deployed or otherwise assigned to duty in
Colombia at any time during the preceding year, the length and
purpose of the deployment or assignment, and the costs and
force protection risks associated with such deployments and
assignments.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 1031--Identification in Budget Materials of Amounts for
Declassification Activities and Limitation on Expenditures For Such
Activities
This section would require that any future budget request
submitted to the Congress by the Department of Defense (DOD)
specifically identify as a budgetary line item funds being
requested that would be used to declassify records to carry out
Executive Order 12958, or to comply with any subsequent
statutory declassification requirements. This section would
also limit the expenditure of funds by the Department of
Defense for declassification of records during fiscal year 2000
to no more than $20 million.
Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton on April
17, 1995, requires the automatic declassification of documents
after 25 years, subject to narrow exceptions such as the
inclusion of nuclear weapon design information. The documents
must be reviewed before they are declassified to determine if
any of the exceptions apply. Presently, the Department of
Defense holds millions of pages of classified documents that
will need to be reviewed for declassification.
The Department of Defense recently reported to the
committee that DOD declassification activities related to
Executive Order 12958 are costing the Department approximately
$200 million per year, and will continue at this rate through
fiscal year 2002. The Department projects that at this rate of
expenditures, the backlog of classified documents over 25 years
old will be eliminated some time during fiscal year 2003, and
after that, the declassification effort will continue to cost
$100 million per year as more documents reach the 25 year
point.
The committee is concerned over the significant drain on
operation and maintenance resources resulting from the planned
annual expenditure of $200 million due to this accelerated
declassification process. The operation and maintenance
accounts and key readiness accounts in particular have been
dramatically underfunded for years, a serious problem that it
exacerbated by unbudgeted contingency operations. The committee
believes that record declassification is a significantly lower
priority for already scarce O&M funds and believes these funds
should be spent addressing shortfalls in higher priority areas
such as maintenance, training, spare parts, and other key
readiness activities. The committee understands that the
services have not been explicitly budgeting for this
declassification effort, and vital readiness requirements have
therefore had to compete with records declassification for
funding.
Consequently, this section would also limit the amount of
funds available for the Department's fiscal year 2000 records
declassification effort to $20 million. The committee has
redirected the resulting $180 million savings to a number of
critical readiness related accounts identified as suffering
from unfunded requirements by the military service chiefs.
Section 1032--Notice to Congressional Committees of Compromise of
Classified Information within Defense Programs of the United States
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
notify the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the Armed
Services Committee of the House of Representatives whenever the
Secretary receives information that indicates that classified
information relating to U.S. defense operations, systems, or
technologies has been disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
This section extends to the Department of Defense the same
congressional notification requirement that section 31xx
mandates for the Department of Energy. Since the Armed Services
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives are
the congressional committees responsible for the authorization
and oversight of the defense programs and operations of the
Department of Defense, its associated agencies, and the
military services, it is necessary that these committees be
kept informed of any compromise of classified information to
foreign powers through espionage, or willful or accidental
release by U.S. citizens. This information is essential so that
these oversight committees can determine if the source of the
unauthorized disclosure has been identified and closed, if a
damage assessment has been conducted, and if remedial action is
necessary and is being carried out. If such a disclosure of
classified information caused significant damage to a U.S.
defense program or operation, it would be vital for these
authorizing committees be made aware of the damage, so that
program redirection or remedial actions could be authorized in
a timely manner.
Section 1033--Revision to Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of
Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
seeks relief from existing statutory limitations on the
retirement of strategic nuclear delivery systems in order to
have greater flexibility in structuring U.S. nuclear forces and
to allow for the retirement of up to four Trident ballistic
missile submarines. Even though Russia has not yet ratified the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II), the Department's
position is driven primarily by concern about the cost of
sustaining delivery systems at current START I force levels.
The committee believes that while cost issues are
important, security and wider strategic and arms control issues
ought to be paramount in determining strategic nuclear force
levels and force structure. The committee has been, and
remains, concerned that any significant restructuring of U.S.
strategic nuclear forces prior to Russian ratification of the
second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) could reduce
the effectiveness of U.S. deterrent forces while also
undermining pending arms control agreements. The committee
notes that reductions in strategic nuclear delivery systems
will almost certainly also reduce flexibility with respect to
the operation and deployment of U.S. strategic forces and
potentially reduce the number of warheads on alert at any given
time.
The committee is convinced that maintaining a robust triad
of strategic nuclear forces remains in the vital national
security interest. Although overall Russian nuclear force
levels have declined, Russia continues to aggressively
modernize its strategic forces with newer, more capable
systems. China is also modernizing its strategic forces, North
Korea recently tested a missile with intercontinental range,
and Iran seeks to develop long range missiles. The committee
believes that, as the strategic threat diversifies, deterrence
becomes more complex and deterrence requirements harder to
assess. Accordingly, the committee notes that under such
conditions, reducing strategic delivery systems simply to
reduce fiscal costs is far from a cost-free option for the
United States.
To address these concerns, this section would amend section
1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997 (Public Law 104-201), as amended, by permanently extending
the prohibition on the obligation of funds for the retirement
of strategic nuclear delivery systems. The provision would
allow the President to waive the prohibition provided he first
certifies that any proposed reduction of strategic nuclear
delivery systems would still allow U.S. strategic requirements
to be met and that such reductions would not be detrimental to
U.S. arms control objectives. The provision would require the
President, if he exercises this waiver, to nonetheless sustain
a force structure of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles such
that it would be capable of employing at least 98 percent of
the 6,000 warhead limit imposed by the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START I). Consistent with current law, the provision
would give the President the authority to waive the prohibition
on retirement of U.S. strategic nuclear delivery systems or
warheads if Russia ratifies START II.
Section 1034--Annual Report by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff on the
Risks in Executing the Missions Called for Under the National Military
Strategy
This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to assess the strategic and military risks involved in
executing the full range of missions called for under the
National Military Strategy and to submit that assessment to the
Secretary of Defense not later than January 1 each year. In
addition, this section would require the Secretary of Defense
to review the assessment, comment upon it and forward the
assessment and comments to the Congress along with plans to
mitigate the risks enumerated in the assessment.
Since September, 1998, the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified
repeatedly to the committee and the Congress that the ability
of the armed forces to execute the missions required under the
National Military Strategy of the United States carries with it
``moderate to high'' risk. In testimony before the committee
this year, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
military service chiefs of staff, and several regional
commanders-in-chief have confirmed that assessment and
elaborated on the nature of the risks involved. These senior
leaders have stated that scarcities of ``low-density, high-
demand'' personnel and equipment are likely to mean increased
numbers of U.S. and allied casualties in the event of war,
delays in achieving the deployment and other timelines
established by the theater commanders-in-chief in their war
plans, and increased threats to U.S. national security
interests. Marine Commandant Gen. Charles Krulak summarized the
situation in his testimony to the committee February 24, 1999,
saying, ``In terms of risk to [the ability to execute] the
National Military Strategy, I think we've gone too far; I think
we're there now. If we don't do something about this, we're
going to be back into the hollow armed forces and this nation
can't have that, can't take that, because the world is changing
so rapidly, is so dangerous, the we need to stop this now.''
The committee also has noted a disturbing trend to these
statements. The risks assessed are no longer couched solely in
terms of risks related to the ability to rapidly and decisively
win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. Although the
capability to perform such a mission remains at the core of
U.S. National Military Strategy, senior officers now speak of
increased risk in conducting smaller-scale contingencies. In
addition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have yet to conduct a
formal risk assessment accounting for the massive deployment of
U.S. forces in support of Operation ``Allied Force'' in
Yugoslavia.
In sum, the committee has long believed that the gap
between strategic ends and military means has grown dangerously
large. While the committee commends the effort by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to come to grips with the nature and extent of
the risk through the Joint Monthly Readiness Review, the
committee believes that the mismatch between ends and means
must be considered at the same time that U.S. National Military
Strategy is articulated, and that a ``high-risk'' strategy--one
lacking sufficient military force to execute--is not a credible
strategy, nor one befitting the critical security interests of
the United States.
Section 1035--Requirement To Address Unit Operations Tempo and Personal
Tempo in Department of Defense Annual Report
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
report on various aspects of operations tempo (OPTEMO) and
personnel tempo (PERSTEMO) in his Annual Report to Congress.
The committee understands that the services have different
definitions as to what constitutes a deployment and have
different policies or regulations limiting these deployments.
In order to gain a better understanding of how the services
address OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO, this section would request the
Secretary to outline individual service polices in the report.
In addition, the department is to report by service a
comparison of the average number of personnel on active duty
during the period covered by the report against the average
number of personnel deployed as defined by that service.
The committee is also concerned about increases in the
number of officially designated exercises and contingencies
that the services are required to support. In addition, the
committee is concerned about the average number of days service
personnel are deployed and whether the services are meeting
their OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO goals. The committee is also concerned
about those units listed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff as high demand, low density units. Traditionally, these
units have experienced higher OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO rates than
other units.
Section 1036--Preservation of Certain Defense Reporting Requirements
The committee notes that section 3003 of the Federal
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-66)
provides that all statutory requirements for annual, semi-
annual, or periodic reports by federal agencies to the Congress
that are contained in a 1993 report issued by the Clerk of the
House shall cease to be effective as of December 21, 1999. The
committee has been aware of this impending requirement and has
identified those reports within its jurisdiction subject to
termination under section 3003. Furthermore, the committee has
conducted an extensive review of the merits of each report in
question. As a result of this examination, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1036) that would authorize the
continuation of specific reports that are essential in the
execution of the committee's oversight responsibilities.
Section 1037--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.
Section 1038--Contributions for Spirit of Hope Endowment Fund of United
Service Organizations, Incorporated
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide a grant of $25.0 million to the United Service
Organizations, Incorporated (USO) for the purposes of helping
to capitalize the Spirit of Hope Endowment Fund. The provision
would require that the release of the authorized funds be
contingent on the ability of the USO to match the authorized
funds with funds raised from private sector sources. The
committee recognizes the valuable and lengthy service that the
USO has provided to members of the Armed Services and is
concerned about the long-term financial health of the USO. This
provision is intended to help ensure that the USO remains a
viable service organization by assisting in its transition to a
more established financial base.
Section 1039--Chemical Defense Training Facility
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
transfer non-stockpile quantities of chemical agent to the
Attorney General to support first responder training at the
Department of Justice Center for Domestic Preparedness at Ft.
McClellan, Alabama. It would also require the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to report
annually to the Congress regarding the disposition of these
agents.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Increase of Pay Cap for Nonappropriated Fund Senior
Executive Employees
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and
the secretaries of the military departments to fix the pay of
Senior Executive Service (SES) nonappropriated fund employees
at the same level as that of appropriated fund SES employees.
Currently, nonappropriated fund SES employees are capped at
Executive Level IV, while appropriated fund SES employees are
capped at Executive Level III. This section would rectify this
pay inequity.
Section 1102--Restoration of Leave for Certain Department of Defense
Employees who Deploy to a Combat Zone Outside the United States
This section would restore excess annual leave lost by
certain Department of Defense employees deployed in support of
the armed forces during hostilities. Section 6304 of title 5,
United States Code, sets limits on the accumulation of annual
leave by civilian employees, and does not except emergency
essential civilian employees deployed in support of the armed
forces during hostilities. This section would provide an
exception to those limits in recognition of the increased
support provided our deployed forces by Department of Defense
civilian employees.
Section 1103--Expansion of Guard-and-Reserve Purposes for which Leave
under Section 6323 of Title 5, United States Code, May be Used
This section would expand the permitted uses of military
leave by members of the reserve components who are also federal
civilian employees. Currently, section 6323 of title 5, United
States Code, provides that federal civilian employees may use
military leave for periods of active duty or field or coastal
defense training. This section would add periods of inactive
duty for training to the categories for which military leave
could be used. This change would recognize the increased and
varied contributions made by today's reserve members and would
allow them the flexibility to use this leave within the current
15 day annual ceiling to further the military readiness of
their reserve units.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Arms Control Implementation
The fiscal year 2000 budget request contained $249.7
million for arms control implementation programs, representing
an increase from the fiscal year 1999 level of $227.3 million.
The committee recommends $236.2 million, a decrease of $13.5
million from the budget request.
As in past years, the Department of Defense's requested
level of funding is predicated in large measure on optimistic
assumptions regarding the entry into force of a number of
treaties, including START II, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT), and the Open Skies Treaty. For example, the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) operation and maintenance budget
request for START II implementation is $2.9 million, compared
to only $0.2 million in fiscal year 1999. Moreover, the
justification documents submitted with the budget request
assume START II entry into force during the first or second
quarter of fiscal year 1999. However, the second quarter of
fiscal year 1999 has already passed, the Russian Duma shows no
sign of ratifying the treaty anytime soon, and the Department
has stated that the Protocol to the START II Treaty signed by
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in September 1997 must be
ratified by the Senate prior to the treaty's entry into force--
a development that does not appear likely in the near future.
Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $2.0
million for START II implementation activities.
In addition, the Department's planning assumption regarding
entry into force of the Open Skies Treaty is the second or
third quarter of fiscal year 1999. As Russia, Ukraine, and
Belarus have yet to ratify the treaty, this assumption also
appears optimistic. Therefore, the committee recommends a
reduction of $1.5 million for Open Skies Treaty implementation.
Finally, the CTBT is unlikely to enter into force anytime
soon. Among the 44 countries whose ratification is required for
the treaty to take effect, 28 have not yet ratified it and
three of those 28--North Korea, India, and Pakistan--have not
even signed it. Consequently, the committee recommends a
reduction of $1.0 million for CTBT-related implementation
activities.
The budget request also includes $9.0 million to reimburse
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
for costs associated with inspections and escort activities at
DOD facilities under the terms of the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC). The committee notes that the Department
currently does not have the legal authority to pay the salary
and other costs of CWC inspectors, and that this cost--as well
as other CWC-related costs--has previously been assumed by the
State Department. The committee also recalls that the Congress
disapproved a similar DOD request last year. Accordingly, the
committee does not believe that these costs are appropriately
borne by the Department of Defense and recommends no funds for
this activity.
Ballistic Missile Defense Discussions With Russia
The committee believes that discussions between the United
States and Russia outside the framework of the 1972 U.S.-Soviet
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty would be useful in managing
a transition from a strategic relationship based exclusively on
offensive deterrence to a more stable one that includes
ballistic missile defenses. The committee notes that such
discussions have been held in the past but were suspended by
the United States in January 1993. The committee also notes
that in 1998, the United States engaged in early discussions
with Russia concerning the possible deployment of a U.S.
national missile defense. These discussions occurred outside
the Standing Consultative Commission, the structure set up by
the ABM Treaty to deal with questions of treaty compliance and
to ``consider possible changes in the strategic situation which
have a bearing on the provisions of the Treaty.''
The committee notes that the ABM Treaty was signed in 1972
when the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United
States was adversarial. In the intervening 27 years, the
strategic relationship that gave rise to the treaty has changed
profoundly, rendering many of its underlying assumptions
obsolete and opening up the possibility of a cooperative
transition to a new strategic relationship. Moreover, while
some maintain that the treaty still rests on a legitimate legal
basis, the committee notes that several recent legal analyses
conclude that the treaty legally lapsed when the Soviet Union
ceased to exist in 1991. In light of the changed strategic
situation and the emergence of ballistic missile threats posed
by regional nuclear powers such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan,
and India, the committee believes that the United States and
Russia can mutually benefit from missile defenses.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to renew,
broaden, and deepen discussions with the Russian Ministry of
Defense intended to facilitate a cooperative transition to a
strategic relationship that meets the requirements of both
nations for active defenses against emerging missile and
nuclear threats. The committee believes that such discussions
would be an important confidence-building measure during the
development and deployment of ballistic missile defense
systems, help maintain strategic stability, and enable further
opportunities for Russian-American cooperation.
Department of Defense Review of Satellite Licenses
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) established a
process for ensuring that the licensing and export of
satellites does not undermine United States national security.
Section 1513 of Public Law 105-261 transferred the licensing
jurisdiction for satellite exports from the Commerce Department
back to the State Department and required the Secretary of
State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and
Commerce, to submit a report to the Congress on the steps taken
to implement the transfer in a manner that would permit the
timely and orderly processing of license applications. That
report was submitted on January 21, 1999.
The report notes that the Departments of State and Defense
``have agreed on the goal of providing a timely and transparent
process'' for satellite export licensing, within existing
statutory and regulatory frameworks and ``the constraints of
each department's available resources.'' The committee believes
that the Department of Defense should review all satellite
license applications in an expeditious fashion in order to
avoid unnecessary delays in the licensing process and urges the
Department to continue exploring opportunities to ensure that
this goal is realized as rapidly as possible.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1201--Report on Strategic Stability Under START III
Nuclear deterrence continues to be a cornerstone of United
States national security. Key to the credibility of that
deterrent is strategic stability: an assured United States
capability to maintain robust nuclear options under a broad
range of scenarios. Over the past decade, the nuclear posture
of the United States has changed significantly as a consequence
of a number of factors, including: deep reductions under the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) and pending
reductions under START II; the de-alerting of United States
strategic bombers and half of the United States force of
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); the unilateral and
virtual elimination by the United States of its arsenal of
tactical nuclear weapons; and unilateral downsizing by the
United States of its strategic command and control
capabilities. Although the Russian Duma has not yet ratified
the START II treaty, it is anticipated that Russia and the
United States will both meet the terms of that treaty, and that
a START III treaty will be negotiated requiring additional
significant reductions and alterations in the nuclear posture
of the United States.
While the committee recognizes that the end of the Cold War
afforded the opportunity to streamline nuclear force structure,
it nevertheless views a robust nuclear deterrent capable of
maintaining strategic stability as indispensable to the
national security of the United States. The emerging threat
environment, characterized by an unstable and unpredictable
Russia that retains thousands of nuclear weapons, China's rapid
modernization of its nuclear forces, and the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and technology to rogue states and Third World
nations, makes maintaining nuclear deterrence both imperative
and more complicated than during the Cold War.
The committee also views a robust nuclear deterrent capable
of maintaining strategic stability as a critical prerequisite
for further nuclear arms reductions under any START III regime.
Strategic stability would not be possible if a potential
adversary, or combination of adversaries, could gain a
significant advantage from striking first or from exploiting
asymmetries in the strategic balance resulting from a START III
treaty.
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report, to be prepared by the Defense Science Board in
cooperation with the Director of Central Intelligence in
classified and unclassified forms, on the strategic stability
of the future nuclear balance between the United States and
Russia and other potential nuclear adversaries.
Section 1202--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities
for Support of United Nations Weapons Inspection Regime in Iraq
This section would extend the authority through fiscal year
2000 of the Department of Defense to provide support to the UN
Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), or any successor weapons
monitoring and inspection regime in Iraq, under the Weapons of
Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992.
The committee notes with growing concern that Iraq
continues to conceal and develop weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). In response to the crisis last year over weapons
inspections conducted by UNSCOM, precipitated by Iraq's
continued refusal to grant UNSCOM complete and unfettered
access to suspected WMD related facilities, the United States
carried out a series of air strikes against Iraq (Operation
Desert Fox) in December, 1998 with the intent of degrading
Iraq's capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction and to
threaten its neighbors. The committee notes that despite these
strikes, Iraq has succeeded in stymieing all internationally-
sanctioned efforts to monitor its ongoing WMD programs. In the
wake of Iraq's expulsion of all UNSCOM inspectors and its
cessation of cooperation with the UN monitoring regime, no
significant WMD monitoring and inspection program has existed
since October 1998.
The committee believes that preventing Iraq from possessing
ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction must remain
a high national priority. The committee is also troubled that
ongoing military operations against Iraq in enforcing the
northern and southern ``no-fly zones''--conducted under
expanded rules of engagement--have neither diminished Iraq's
WMD capability nor had any effect in coercing Saddam Hussein's
regime to accept a resumption of the weapons monitoring and
inspection regime.
The committee supports continued DOD participation in any
international effort to monitor and verify Iraq's ongoing WMD
programs. Consequently, the committee agrees to a one-year
extension of DOD's authority to provide support to UNSCOM, or
its successor, for the purposes of monitoring, inspecting,
verifying, and eliminating Iraq's proscribed weapons and
delivery systems.
Section 1203--Military-to-Military Contacts with Chinese People's
Liberation Army
This section would establish the policy for the conduct of
military-to-military contacts between the U.S. armed forces and
the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China.
First, the section would provide that such policy be governed
by the principles of reciprocity and transparency. Second, the
section would establish limits that would prevent members of
the People's Liberation Army from inappropriate access to
advanced technologies and capabilities of the U.S. armed
forces. Third, the section would require the Secretary of
Defense to certify prior to the start of any year that
military-to-military contacts with the People's Liberation Army
will be conducted in accordance with such principles of
reciprocity and transparency, that such contacts are in the
national security interest of the United States, and would
prohibit members of the U.S. armed forces from participating in
any military-to-military contacts until such a certification
was given to the Congress. Finally, the section would require
the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed annual report to
the Congress that provides an assessment of the military-to-
military contacts with the People's Liberation Army.
The committee strongly believes that such policies and
limitations are warranted by the pattern of Chinese efforts to
improve the strength of its armed forces by acquiring advanced
technologies and developing advanced military operational
concepts and organizations based upon the model established by
the U.S. armed forces over the past two decades. Through a
coordinated pattern of activities ranging from official, high-
level visits through outright espionage, it is clear to the
committee that the People's Liberation Army is embarked upon a
broad modernization effort that has the potential to compromise
the advantages enjoyed by U.S. forces, not merely in relation
to Chinese forces but other armed forces as well. Past
Department of Defense reports demonstrate to the committee that
the Chinese seek to develop capabilities for force projection,
nuclear operations, space operations and other advanced
military operations in large part through understanding and
emulating American practices.
In addition, the committee has been increasingly concerned
by the pattern of military-to-military contacts between U.S.
forces and members of the People's Liberation Army. In the
committee's judgment, the Administration has not taken adequate
steps to protect U.S. operational practices and technological
advantages. In general, the U.S. pattern of openness contrasts
markedly with the restrictions placed upon American access to
Chinese facilities and installations, personnel and units, and
events such as major exercises. The committee is also disturbed
to learn that U.S. policy for military-to-military contacts
between U.S. armed forces and members of the People's
Liberation Army has not been controlled by the Department of
Defense, but rather by other elements of the Administration,
and that military objections to such policy have been overruled
in deference to the Administration's larger policy of strategic
engagement with the People's Republic of China. In sum, the
committee believes that the principles of transparency and
reciprocity have not been observed by the Chinese and that
programs of military exchange have been one-sided, to the
detriment of U.S. national security interests.
Section 1204--Report on Allied Capabilities to Contribute to Major
Theater Wars
It has long been a tenet of U.S. national military strategy
and defense planning to acknowledge that American military
forces are most likely to operate as members of coalition
forces. This tenet has been reinforced by the strategic reviews
conducted by the Department of Defense since the end of the
Cold war, including the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, which
assumes in its analysis of the core mission of U.S. armed
forces that major theater wars will be fought ``in concert with
regional allies.''
However, the Quadrennial Defense Review also postulates a
``changing strategic environment'' that ``requires that we
reassess . . . the degree to which we rely on allies . . . in
major theater wars.'' In the committee's view, such a
reassessment is overdue. Like U.S. armed forces, the armed
forces of our major allies have been significantly reduced
through the post-Cold War period. Also like U.S. armed forces,
the pace of contingency operations for our major allies has
been high. The French and British, for example, who provided
supporting formations during the Persian Gulf War, including
participating in the main ground attack of that conflict, are
``doing more with less'' as are U.S. armed forces. After
undergoing substantial force reductions over the past decade,
both French and British forces are today operating in the air
campaign against Yugoslavia, provide substantial ground forces
in Bosnia, and would play a large role in any ground operations
in Kosovo, either in a combat or peacekeeping role. In addition
to ongoing operations in the Gulf and in the Balkans, both
France and Britain have been involved in substantial
contingency operations that are solely in their own security
interests such as in Africa and Northern Ireland. In sum, the
ability of France and Britain, perhaps the United States' most
militarily capable allies, to surge large forces in the event
of a major theater war, is increasingly open to question.
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
prepare a report, in both classified and unclassified form,
describing the current capabilities and commitment of the
allied forces anticipated to support U.S. operations in major
theater wars and to determine the risk to the successful
conduct of those wars resulting from any shortfalls in
anticipated allied forces.
Section 1205--Limitation on Funds for Bosnia Peacekeeping Operations
for Fiscal Year 2000
This section would limit the amount of funds available for
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia to the amounts contained in
the budget request, $1,824.4 million. The provision would also
permit the President to waive this limitation by submitting to
the Congress a certification of national security interest, a
report, and a request for supplemental appropriations to cover
the associated additional costs.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET
UNION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $475.5 million for cooperative
threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing an increase of
$35.1 million over the amounts appropriated for fiscal year
1999. The request included $330.0 million for destruction and
dismantlement, $119.7 million for fissile materials and nuclear
weapons safety and storage, $20.0 million for reactor core
conversion in Russia, $2.0 million for biological weapons
proliferation prevention in Russia, and $3.8 million for other
program support, including defense and military contacts.
The committee recommends a total of $444.1 million for CTR
activities in fiscal year 2000, a decrease of $31.4 million
from the budget request and an increase of $3.7 million over
the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends the request of $9.3 million for warhead
dismantlement processing in Russia; $15.2 million for weapons
transportation security in Russia; $20 million for reactor core
conversion in Russia; $2.0 million for biological weapons
proliferation prevention activities in Russia; and $1.8 million
for other program support. The committee recommends the
following decreases to the budget request: $105.8 million for
chemical weapons destruction; $3.6 million for a fissile
material storage facility in Russia; and $2.0 million for
defense and military contacts. The committee recommends the
following increases to the budget request: $20.0 million for
strategic offensive arms elimination activities in Russia;
$10.0 million for strategic nuclear arms elimination in
Ukraine; and $50.0 million for weapons storage security in
Russia. The discussion below provides the rationale for these
recommendations and raises other matters of interest and
concern to the committee.
In general, the committee notes that the Congress'
consistent support for the CTR program since its inception has
been predicated upon certain assumptions and assurances by the
Department of Defense that are increasingly subject to
challenge. These include a belief that the effort to assist in
the elimination of former Soviet weapons would be cooperative
in a fiscal as well as a practical sense--with the costs of the
effort being shared by the parties concerned and not borne
exclusively by the United States.
Eight years after the CTR program was inaugurated, the
committee notes that the economic decline of the states of the
former Soviet Union--in particular, Russia--has resulted in a
reduced financial commitment by those states to a variety of
CTR projects. This situation has placed the Department in the
position of having to absorb significant additional costs that
previously were not planned to be borne by the United States.
While the committee understands and has supported the national
security rationale underlying the Department's CTR efforts,
current economic conditions suggest that this assistance will
cost the United States billions of dollars more than previously
anticipated. Moreover, the committee is concerned that the
United States' willingness to absorb these additional costs
may, in turn, further dampen any incentive for the recipient
countries to invest their own resources in weapons
dismantlement and destruction activities.
For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 1308) that would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report by December 31, 1999 that explains the
Department's strategy for encouraging CTR recipient states to
contribute financially to the threat reduction effort, that
prioritizes the Department's CTR projects on the basis of their
national security benefit to the United States, and that
identifies any limitations that the United States has imposed
or will seek to impose, either unilaterally or through
negotiations, on the U.S. level of assistance for each of these
projects.
In addition, the committee notes that the scope of the CTR
program has expanded since its inception into areas beyond its
original focus of reducing the nuclear threat to the United
States. As a result, the committee questions whether some CTR
activities are appropriately the responsibility of the
Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1307) that would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report no later than December 31, 1999
explaining why the Department of Defense is the appropriate
funding authority for each of the CTR projects for which
funding is requested, identifying those activities that might
be more appropriately funded by other agencies, and presenting
a plan to migrate these projects to other non-DOD agencies.
Finally, the committee notes that the seven-year
``umbrella'' agreement that provides the authority under which
CTR projects are implemented in Russia will expire on June 17,
1999. Without its extension or renewal, all CTR work in Russia
will cease after that date. According to the Department, Russia
has been unwilling so far to renew the agreement without
modifications that could affect taxation, audits and
examinations, and other aspects of the CTR program. The
committee strongly urges the Department not to agree to any
modifications that would compromise the protections granted the
CTR program under the original umbrella agreement.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia
The budget request contained $157.3 million for strategic
offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, a ten percent
increase from the fiscal year 1999 appropriated amount of
$142.2 million.
The committee reiterates its support for the accelerated
elimination of strategic offensive weapons in Russia in
accordance with the START I Treaty, notwithstanding the
concerns mentioned above, and recommends an additional $20.0
million for this task. However, the committee remains concerned
with Russia's continuing non-ratification of the 1993 START II
Treaty and its apparent inability or unwillingness to move
forward with START I Treaty-mandated reductions in the absence
of additional U.S. CTR assistance. In the committee's view,
Russia is legally obligated to reduce its strategic offensive
forces according to the provisions of START I. This obligation
is not conditioned upon the receipt of U.S. assistance. For
Russia to refuse to carry out these reductions without CTR
assistance places the United States in the position of having
to buy Russian compliance with its arms control commitments and
sets an objectionable precedent.
In particular, the committee notes that the budget request
includes more than $15.0 million to support the complete
elimination of 26 SS-18 ICBM silo launcher sites. However,
although Russia is legally obligated under START I to eliminate
at least 22 SS-18 ICBM launchers each year, it has failed to do
so on the grounds that it could not afford the cost of these
dismantlements. The committee is concerned that the
Department's willingness to relieve Russia of some of the
financial burden associated with its treaty-mandated reductions
will allow Russia to devote a greater proportion of its scarce
resources to the development of newer and more sophisticated
strategic offensive arms. In fact, the committee notes that
Russia continues to invest in the production and deployment of
the new SS-27 ``Topol-M'' ICBM.
In this regard, the committee notes that the Russian
government has acknowledged a linkage between the elimination
of older systems through the CTR program and the development of
newer missile systems. Yuri Maslyukov, First Vice Premier of
the Russian Federation, stated in December 1998 that ``the
funding of arms elimination under Nunn-Lugar [the CTR program]
is now comparable with our annual expenditure on modernizing
the strategic nuclear forces and deploying the grouping of
Topol-M missiles. In other words, since the present missiles
will anyhow have to be dismantled. the absence of the Nunn-
Lugar program. will compel Russia to take for these purposes
the money currently planned for the deployment of new missile
complexes, since there is simply nowhere to obtain any more
money.'' The committee does not believe that the CTR program
should relieve Russia of the necessity to choose between
funding its legally-binding disarmament obligations and its
strategic modernization program.
Because of the concerns noted above, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by December 31,
1999 that identifies:
(1) the number of SS-18 missile and launcher
eliminations that have occurred since the START
I Treaty entered into force in 1991;
(2) the Department's assumptions regarding Russia's
willingness and ability to eliminate at least
22 SS-18 ICBM launchers per year with the CTR
assistance currently being provided and
proposed for this task and in the absence of
such assistance;
(3) whether additional CTR assistance for SS-18
eliminations establishes a precedent whereby
the United States will pay for Russian arms
control compliance; and
(4) what Russia has spent and is expected to spend
on the strategic offensive arms elimination
effort, including the value of any ``in-kind''
Russian contribution to the elimination
process.
In addition, the report should discuss under what
circumstances the Department might consider using CTR funds to
eliminate Russia's stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons.
Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine
The budget request contained $33.0 million for strategic
nuclear arms elimination projects in Ukraine, a reduction of
$14.5 million from the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level.
This decline reflects the achievement of certain project
objectives. The budget request would support the elimination in
Ukraine of ICBMs, ICBM silos, and heavy bombers. The committee
supports this effort and recommends an additional $10 million
for strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine.
Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia
The budget request contained $2.0 million for collaborative
research projects with scientists at Russian institutes where
biological weapons work has been carried out. The request is
identical to the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level. The
Department has justified this project as an effort to employ in
civilian-oriented research Russian scientists formerly involved
in biological weapons work and to keep them from selling their
expertise to potentially hostile countries such as Iran.
The committee notes that this effort is part of the multi-
agency ``Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative'' initially
announced by President Clinton in his January 1999 State of the
Union address. Although the Department proposes to fund its
share of this effort at $2.0 million in fiscal year 2000,
Administration projections forecast an increase in the DOD CTR
budget for these activities to $34.8 million in fiscal year
2004. In addition, significant funding for similar initiatives
is being proposed within the State Department budget.
The committee approves the requested amount for this
purpose. The committee recognizes the threat posed by the
proliferation of biological weapons and supports efforts to
counter that threat. However, those efforts are complicated by
the magnitude and expansiveness of the former Soviet Union's
biological weapons activities, the continuing lack of
transparency with respect to Russia's military biological
weapons research and development programs, and the ambiguous
line that separates civilian research from military research.
The committee does not believe that increased funding and
collaborative efforts with Russian scientists should be a
prerequisite for greater Russian transparency. In addition, the
committee is troubled by the prospect that such collaborative
programs could result in the perpetuation of a knowledge base
and a set of skills among Russian scientists that could be
useful for biological weapons production and that might
actually make them more attractive candidates for recruitment
by states seeking a biological weapons capability in the
future.
With these concerns in mind, the committee notes that
section 1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) requires the Secretary of
Defense to submit, prior to the obligation of any fiscal year
1999 CTR funds for biological weapons proliferation prevention
projects, a report on the use of CTR funds at biological
institutes in Russia and on the development of any new strains
of anthrax. Moreover, section 1308 of Public Law 105-261
required the Secretary to submit by March 1, 1999 a report on
biological weapons programs in Russia. The committee has not
received either of these reports and therefore recommends a
provision (sec. 1306) that would prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of any fiscal year 2000 CTR funds for biological
weapons proliferation prevention activities in Russia until the
requirements of Public Law 105-261 have been met.
Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia
The budget request contained $130.4 million for chemical
weapons destruction activities in Russia, a 47 percent increase
over the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level of $88.4 million.
The request would be used to support continued optimization of
the chemical agent elimination process, procurement of
equipment, and design and construction activities for a
chemical weapons destruction facility to be built near
Shchuch'ye, Russia. This project has fallen more than two years
behind schedule.
CTR officials have justified funding for the Shchuch'ye
project on three grounds: that it would assist Russia in
meeting the chemical weapons elimination deadlines established
by the CWC; that it would encourage other countries to
contribute to Russia's chemical weapons destruction effort; and
that it would advance U.S. nonproliferation objectives. The
committee believes that these arguments do not stand up well
under scrutiny.
The committee recommends $24.6 million for chemical
weapons-related activities in Russia--a decrease of $105.8
million from the request--and directs that these funds be used
to initiate security enhancement projects at Russian chemical
weapons storage sites. In addition, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1305) that would prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of any fiscal year 2000 CTR funds for activities
related to the planning, design, or construction of the
Shchuch'ye chemical weapons destruction facility. Further, the
committee directs the Department to use unobligated prior year
balances to provide for an orderly close-out of existing
planning and design activity and not to use these funds for
construction activity at Shchuch'ye.
There are a number of long-standing concerns that lead the
committee to this recommendation. First, according to the
Department, the United States is not prepared to fund
completion of this project until Russia makes significant
improvements to the local community infrastructure, including
roads, worker housing, public service facilities, and other
social development projects. These infrastructure improvements
have been estimated by CTR officials to cost at least $200.0
million. Russia is unlikely to be able to pay for these
improvements and the United States has stated that it has no
intention of absorbing these costs.
Second, only 14 percent of Russia's declared stockpile of
chemical weapons is located at Shchuch'ye. Moreover, these
munitions are ground-launched, not air-launched, and,
consequently, pose a lesser threat to the United States and the
West due to their shorter deliverable range.
Third, Russia's desire for CTR assistance to help eliminate
aging chemical weapons owes more to the fact that these weapons
pose an environmental problem for Russia than a security threat
to the United States.
Fourth, as a pilot project, the Shchuch'ye facility would
have an initial destruction capacity of 500 metric tons
annually. In an April 1999 report, the General According Office
(GAO) concluded that ``the Shchuch'ye pilot facility's limited
capacity and delayed start of operations will prevent Russia
from destroying the Shchuch'ye depot's nerve agent stocks
before Russia's Chemical Weapons Convention deadline of 2007.''
The facility is expected to begin destroying nerve agents by
2006 and at the initial elimination rate would not finish
destroying most of the Shchuch'ye depot's stockpile until ``10
years after the expiration of Russia's Convention deadline and
5 years after the expiration of an extension to that
deadline.'' The United States has stated that it does not plan
to pay the estimated $250.0 million costs associated with
increasing the facility's capacity to 1,200 metric tons
annually, and the Russians are unlikely to do so. This raises
doubt as to whether the facility will ever reach its full
elimination potential.
Fifth, Russia has chemical weapons stored at at least six
other sites and would need to build at least six additional
destruction facilities to destroy the 40,000 tons of chemical
weapons in its declared stockpile. Although the total cost of
eliminating Russia's declared arsenal of 40,000 tons of
chemical weapons has been estimated at between $5.0 and $7.5
billion, Russia reduced its fiscal year 1998 budget for
chemical weapons elimination from $83 million to approximately
$13 million. In fiscal year 1999, Russia has budgeted $63.0
million for all chemical weapons elimination activities and is
expected to actually spend only a fraction of that amount. The
total non-U.S. international contribution to Russia's chemical
weapons elimination effort amounts to only $18 million. For a
number of reasons, the GAO concludes that ``the Shchuch'ye
project cannot achieve its broader national security objectives
unless Russia receives a large infusion of additional
funding.''
Sixth, the U.S. share of the costs to build the Shchuch'ye
facility has been estimated by DOD at approximately $750.0
million, yet there is no indication that Russia will be willing
or able to absorb the annual costs of operating the facility,
which are likely to be substantial and which the United States
may be asked to assume.
Finally, even the Department apparently believes this
project to be a lower priority than other initiatives, as it
reduced its planned budget for Shchuch'ye by approximately $85
million in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 in order to reallocate
the funds elsewhere. The committee believes that there are
higher priority CTR efforts that are likely to provide a
greater security return on investment and encourages the
Department to focus its attention and resources on such
efforts. These include efforts to enhance security at Russia's
existing chemical weapons depots, which will contribute to U.S.
non-proliferation objectives.
Fissile Material Storage Facility
The budget request contained $64.5 million for equipment
and construction of a fissile material storage facility in
Russia to house materials from dismantled strategic nuclear
weapons. This is an increase from the $60.9 million
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
The committee recommends a decrease of $3.6 million for
this project. Although the committee reiterates its support for
the safe and secure storage of fissile materials removed from
Russian nuclear weapons, the construction of the facility at
Mayak, Russia has been marked by significant schedule delays
and mounting costs. The completion of the facility has been
delayed by at least three years, from 1999 to 2002.
According to an April 1999 GAO report, ``Russian reluctance
to share critical information with the United States may limit
Mayak's national security benefits . . .'' In addition, GAO
noted that it ``will cost more than previously estimated and
take longer than previously scheduled. Unless Russia and other
foreign nations take certain steps, [the facility] will not
provide the United States with all the national security
benefits that it sought.''
The committee continues to have concerns over the total
cost of the Mayak facility, and the appropriate U.S. share of
these costs. In Congressional testimony in 1995 and 1996, DOD
officials stated: ``The United States is willing to provide up
to half the cost of the facility.'' This would have capped the
U.S. share of Mayak costs at approximately $275.0 million. In
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85), the Congress reinforced this cost cap by
requiring a cost-sharing agreement with Russia. However, last
year Russia indicated that it does not plan to provide the
funds for its share of the costs to complete this project.
Consequently, the Department agreed to pay for most of Russia's
costs for the Mayak facility. The committee notes that this
decision was taken without Congressional consultation. In
January 1999, the Department concluded an agreement with
Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy to cap U.S. funding at
$412.6 million--a $137.6 million increase in the U.S. cost with
the United States now estimated to be paying for roughly 90
percent of the project's total cost.
Moreover, while the United States has agreed to absorb this
substantial cost increase, the facility itself will be only one
half the size it was originally intended to be. According to
GAO, completion of the second wing of the Mayak facility--which
was originally included in the Department's $275.0 million cost
cap--``would cost the United States another $230 million--
raising total U.S. Mayak design and construction costs to about
$642 million''--roughly 125 percent more than the Department's
1996 cap. Additional costs may raise the U.S. costs for this
project to more than $1.2 billion.
The committee is also concerned by the lack of a
transparency agreement with Russia that will allow the United
States to verify that the fissile materials stored at Mayak
have been removed from dismantled nuclear weapons. The
committee notes that the Congress' prior support for this
project was predicated on the Department's position that the
Mayak facility would house fissile materials removed from
former Soviet nuclear weapons (so-called ``weapons-origin''
materials) and not simply weapons-grade fissile materials
previously stored elsewhere. The committee notes that section
1407 of Public Law 105-85 required the Secretary of Defense to
notify the Congress once a transparency agreement had been
reached with Russia. In requiring this notification, the
Congress specifically intended to encourage the Department to
negotiate a written agreement containing specific measures and
procedures for verifying the weapons origin of the materials to
be stored at Mayak. On April 8, 1999, the Secretary notified
the committee that ``the Department of Defense and the
[Russian] Ministry of Atomic Energy have also reached agreement
incorporating the principle of transparency with respect to the
storage facility.'' However, the Secretary's notification
references a 1996 agreement on the ``requirement for
transparency measures'' and a transparency ``Protocol'' that
has not yet been finalized. No written agreement with the
Russians has been concluded to date that specifies the
transparency measures and procedures that will be used, in
accordance with the clear intent of the section 1407
limitation.
The committee strongly encourages the Department to
continue to seek an agreement that would ensure the ability of
the United States to verify the weapons origin of any fissile
materials stored at Mayak. However, the committee reminds the
Department that as construction of the facility continues
without such an agreement, U.S. negotiating leverage
diminishes.
As a result of these concerns, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1304) that would prohibit funding for
construction of the second wing at Mayak until the Secretary of
Defense certifies to Congress that the additional storage
capacity is required and submits a detailed cost estimate for
the second wing. In addition, this provision would prohibit the
use of fiscal year 2000 CTR funds for construction of the
second wing and would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of
these funds until 15 days after the Congress is notified that a
written agreement detailing the specific transparency measures
to be implemented has been reached.
Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion
The budget request included $20.0 million for nuclear
reactor core conversion projects in Russia, a reduction of $9.8
million from the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. This
activity is intended to support of goal of eliminating Russian
plutonium production by 2000. However, the core conversion
project has been restructured in light of a lack of Russian
funding and will take longer and cost more than previously
planned. As a result, DOD funding for this activity is expected
to increase steadily through fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends the requested amount for this
project. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) initiated
nuclear reactor core conversion efforts several years ago and
remains the agency of primary responsibility for its execution.
The committee believes that nuclear reactor core conversion is
an activity that is more appropriately the responsibility of
DOE and urges the Secretary of Defense to migrate funding and
oversight responsibility for this effort back to DOE.
Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia
The budget request contained $9.3 million to assist Russia
in processing the fissile components of dismantled nuclear
warheads in preparation for long-term storage. This is slightly
less than last year's appropriated amount of $9.4 million. The
committee recommends the budget request.
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia
The budget request included $40.0 million for nuclear
weapons storage security in Russia, a slight decrease from the
appropriated level of $41.7 million in fiscal year 1999.
The committee supports the objective of ensuring the safe
and secure storage of Russian nuclear weapons. However, the
committee continues to have concerns regarding Russia's
willingness to allow the United States access to certain
nuclear weapons storage sites for the purposes of auditing U.S.
CTR assistance. Moreover, Russia recently indicated that there
are at least 70 additional sites requiring security
enhancements than the United States previously believed.
To assist Russia with security enhancements at these
additional sites and to encourage Russian cooperation in
agreeing to effective audit and examination procedures, the
committee recommends $90.0 million for this activity, an
increase of $50.0 million.
Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security
The budget request contained $15.2 million for nuclear
weapons transportation security in Russia, roughly a 50 percent
increase from the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The
committee recommends the budget request.
The committee has previously expressed concern over U.S.
funding for these initiatives, which until last year had been
Russia's responsibility. The committee reiterates its belief
that the Department should seek to resolve transportation
security issues with Russia in a manner that does not commit
the United States to pay the future costs of rail
transportation of nuclear weapons from operational deployment
sites to storage facilities.
Other Support Programs and Assessments
The budget request included $2.0 million for defense and
military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union
and $1.8 million for other assessments, including management
and administrative costs, project development, and audits and
examinations, a reduction of $4.2 million from the appropriated
levels in fiscal year 1999.
The committee recommends no funds for defense and military
contacts. The committee notes that the Department has more than
$25.0 million available in prior-year unobligated balances for
such initiatives. The committee recommends the request of $1.8
million for other assessments.
Prohibition of Specified Activities
The committee reiterates its belief that the focus of the
CTR program should be on facilitating the elimination of former
Soviet weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles.
For this reason, the committee has consistently resisted
attempts to expand the program beyond its core objectives.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1303)
that would make permanent long-standing prohibitions on the use
of CTR funds for peacekeeping-related activities, housing,
environmental restoration, job retraining, and defense
conversion, and would prohibit the use of CTR funds for the
elimination of conventional weapons or their delivery vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
and Funds
This section would specify the kinds of programs to be
funded under this title and would make fiscal year 2000 CTR
funds available for obligation for three years.
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
This section would allocate fiscal year 2000 funding for
various CTR purposes and activities.
Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified Purposes
This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for
specified activities, including peacekeeping-related, housing,
environmental restoration, job retraining, and defense
conversion purposes. It would also prohibit the use of CTR
funds for conventional weapons elimination purposes.
Section 1304--Limitations on Use of Funds for Fissile Material Storage
Facility
This section would prohibit the use of certain CTR funds
for construction of an additional fissile material storage
facility until various reports and certifications are submitted
to Congress and would restrict fiscal year 2000 CTR funding for
this purpose until a transparency agreement with Russia is
signed.
Section 1305--Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons
Destruction
This section would prohibit the use of funds for activities
related to a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia.
Section 1306--Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological Weapons
Proliferation Prevention Activities
This section would limit the use of funds for this purpose
until the Secretary submits to the Congress reports required by
Public Law 105-261.
Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of Report and
Multiyear Plan
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of any fiscal year 2000 CTR funds until the Secretary submits
the update to the multiyear plan required by section 1205 of
Public Law 103-337 and a report detailing the appropriate role
of the Department in funding CTR programs.
Section 1308--Requirement to Submit Report
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on the fiscal and cost-sharing aspects of the
CTR program.
Section 1309--Report on Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative
This section would require the President to submit a report
by December 31, 1999 describing the multi-agency Expanded
Threat Reduction Initiative and how interagency coordination
will be achieved to eliminate program redundancies.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of Division B is to provide military
construction authorizations and related authority in support of
the military departments during fiscal year 2000. As approved
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in
the amount of $8,590,243,000 for construction in support of the
active forces, reserve components, defense agencies for fiscal
year 2000.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
The military construction authorization request for fiscal
year 2000 was introduced by request as division B of H.R. 1401
on April 14, 1999.
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $5,438,443,333 for fiscal year 2000 for
military construction, including $705,911,000 for activities
associated with base closure and realignment, and
$3,115,687,000 for family housing construction and support. The
committee reallocated $51,800,000 within the budget request of
the Department of Defense to support military construction
requirements related to the drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities of the Department of Defense and planning and design
activities for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The
committee recommends $4,988,012,000 for military construction,
including $705,911,000 for activities associated with base
closure and realignment, and $3,602,231,000 for family housing
construction and support for fiscal year 2000.
The committee restates its deepening concern about the
condition of the Nation's military installations and facilities
and continues to be troubled by the continuing and persistent
underinvestment by the Administration in military facilities
and infrastructure. The budget request for the authorization of
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the military
construction and military family housing programs of the
Department of Defense, if enacted, would represent a 36 percent
reduction from current spending levels and a 38 percent
reduction from the budget estimates for the coming fiscal year
presented to the Congress one year ago.
To address the serious shortfalls in the Administration's
budget request, the committee recommends an increase in new
budget authority for these programs of $3,100,000,000. The
committee notes that the increase in new budget authority would
not address completely the funding deficit created by the
budget request. The committee considers the full funding of
justified military construction and military family housing
projects, with a particular emphasis upon housing for
unaccompanied military personnel and military families,
facilities that enhance the quality of life for military
personnel, and facilities to enhance the training and readiness
of the Armed Forces, to be a critical readiness priority.
Additionally, the committee recommends a limited number of
additional military construction projects with a special
emphasis on facilities that enhance the training and readiness
of the Armed Forces. In limited instances, where large
construction projects could be funded in phases, consistent
with the well-established statutory and regulatory framework
for such projects, the committee recommends such a funding
approach.
The committee recommends funding for the base closure and
realignment activities of the Department of Defense at the
amount requested for authorization of appropriations for the
coming fiscal year. The committee notes the assurances of the
Department of Defense that the requested amount of $705,911,000
is adequate to address requirements in fiscal year 2000.
Consistent with those assurances, the committee expects no
delay in the timely environmental remediation of realigning or
closing installations and no deferral in the reuse of affected
military installations.
In an effort to improve the quality of life for military
personnel and their families, the committee reiterates its
support for the authorities provided in subchapter IV, chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code. The Military Housing
Privatization Initiative remains a central component of the
ultimate resolution of the military housing crisis. The
committee, however, reiterates its view that this initiative
should not be viewed by the military departments as a
substitute for military family housing construction projects
where those projects are necessary to alleviate immediate
housing problems or in those locations where the privatization
initiative is not economically or otherwise feasible.
In that context, the committee is deeply concerned about
the budget request of the Department of the Army for military
family housing construction. The Army requested no funds for
military family housing construction at military installations
in the United States. While the committee strongly supports the
requirement to improve living conditions for military families
outside the United States, the committee does not believe
divestment in military family housing construction is
appropriate given the scope of the housing crisis and the slow
pace of execution under the initiative. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that future budget requests for
the military family housing programs of the military
departments adequately address current and anticipated
requirements.
STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET REQUEST
The committee is concerned about the structure of the
budget request for fiscal year 2000. The Administration
proposed two significant changes in the management of the
military construction and military family housing programs.
First, the Administration requested $3,060,830,000 in
authorization of advance appropriations for fiscal year 2001 to
support military construction projects contained in the budget
request for the coming fiscal year. The committee notes that
every military construction and military family housing
project, with the exception of projects affecting certain
classified programs and the programs of the defense agencies,
were subject to incremental funding on an outlay-rate basis.
Second, the Administration requested the separation of funds
for supervision, overhead, and inspection (SIOH) charges
totaling $154,281,000 from specific military construction
projects and to annualize those charges over a five-year
period. The committee strongly opposes both changes to the
management of the Department's military construction and
military family housing programs.
The committee notes that no precedent exists for the broad-
based, incremental funding of military construction as proposed
by the Administration. The committee is concerned that the
Administration's proposal would negatively affect the timely
execution of the military construction program for the coming
fiscal year. Execution would be dependent upon the development
of new, possibly costly, business practices. Management
uncertainty and the spread of project costs over multiple
fiscal years would likely lead to increased costs and a delay
in the delivery of needed facilities. The committee is also
concerned that extensive incremental funding on an outlay-rate
basis would reduce the flexibility of the military departments
to meet unforeseen requirements or address contract
difficulties due to a lack of funds. There is no evidence to
suggest that either proposal would benefit the taxpayer, and
both proposals would, over the long term, likely cost the
taxpayer more.
A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in
Division B for fiscal year 2000 follows:
A tabular summary of the military construction projects
included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal
year 2000 for the BRAC IV account follows:
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $656,003,000 for Army military
construction and $1,112,083,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,214,405,000 for military construction and $1,170,012,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2000.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Improvements to Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements to military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Army execute the following project: $2,800,000
for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Phase V (26 units) at
Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Environmental Remediation at Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant,
Chattanooga, Tennessee
The committee notes the efforts of the Department of the
Army to implement expeditiously the conveyance of the Volunteer
Army Ammunition Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee, authorized by
section 2844 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105-261). The
committee recognizes recent management practices of the Army in
dedicating funds deposited into the special account established
pursuant to section 485(h)(2) of title 40, United States Code,
for the environmental remediation of real property at specific
locations beyond the 50 percent of such deposits as required by
law. The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to continue
this practice where such funds are required to complete
remediation in a timely manner. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to report on the schedule for completion
of remediation activities at the Volunteer Army Ammunition
Plant concurrent with the submission of the budget request for
fiscal year 2001.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2000.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2000.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
2000. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $319,786,000 for Navy military
construction and $959,675,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of
$933,022,000 for military construction and $1,151,085,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2000.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Headquarters, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific
The budget request contained $15,870,000 for the first
increment of an $86,050,000 military construction project to
develop a headquarters to support the Commander-in-Chief,
Pacific, and associated command elements at Camp H.M. Smith,
Hawaii. The committee recommends deferral of this project. The
committee notes the authority recommended in section 2802 of
this bill to further the development of Ford Island, Hawaii,
for the support of the military activities of the Department of
the Navy and other military activities of the Department of
Defense. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to study the
viability of the relocation of the headquarters, Commander-in-
Chief, Pacific, to Ford Island and to assess the adequacy of
those authorities provided in section 2802 of this bill to
support the development of appropriate headquarters facilities
on Ford Island. The committee further directs the Secretary of
the Navy to complete the study and assessment as part of the
master plan for the development of Ford Island, Hawaii,
required by that section.
Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities, Blount
Island, Jacksonville, Florida
The committee notes the recent approval by the Secretary of
Defense of a waiver of the current moratorium on land
acquisition for the purchase of the afloat prepositioning
maintenance facilities at Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida,
currently operated under lease by the Marine Corps. The
committee notes that these facilities are critical to the
prepositioning support of the Marine Corps. The committee has
noted previously that ownership of these facilities could save
the Department of the Navy between six and seven million
dollars annually. The committee acknowledges again the analysis
of studies previously required by law which concluded that the
Army and the Marine Corps should maintain and operate separate,
but complementary, prepositioning facilities in Charleston,
South Carolina, and Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida,
respectively. In an effort to ensure the continued readiness of
the Marine Corps, the need for strategic placement of
prepositioning facilities, and the desire to obtain the most
cost-effective solution to prepositioning operations, the
committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Navy to proceed
with those actions necessary to bring this acquisition to
completion at the earliest possible time.
Improvements to Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements to military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Navy execute the following project: $9,100,000
for Whole House Revitalization (91 units) at Marine Corps Base,
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
Unspecified Minor Construction
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Navy
execute the following project: $950,000 for an aircraft parts
staging facility at Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville,
Florida.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
2000.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2000.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 2000. This
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy
may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2205--Authorization to Accept Electrical Substation
Improvements, Guam
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
accept electrical utility system improvements valued at
$610,000 from the Guam Power Authority at Agana Substation and
Harmon Substation at Public Works Center, Guam.
Section 2206--Correction in Authorized Use of Funds, Marine Corps
Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia
This section would correct the authorized use of funds
authorized for appropriation for fiscal year 1997 for a
military construction project at Marine Corps Command
Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. This section would
permit the use of previously authorized funds to carry out a
military construction project involving infrastructure
development at that installation.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $179,479,000 for Air Force
military construction and $923,683,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of
$713,165,000 for military construction and $1,160,888,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2000.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2000.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 2000.
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $193,005,000 for defense
agencies military construction, $705,911,000 for activities
associated with base closure and realignment, and $120,246,000
for family housing for fiscal year 2000. The committee
recommends authorization of $792,808,000 for military
construction, $705,911,000 for activities associated with base
closure and realignment, and $120,246,000 for family housing.
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Military Construction in Support of Base Closure and Realignment
Activities
The committee is concerned that the total cost of military
construction projects in support of the base closure and
realignment activities of the Department of the Navy were not
included in the budget request. The committee is concerned that
less than full funding of such projects may place at risk the
requirement to meet statutory deadlines for the beddown of
operational and other missions at Marine Corps Air Station,
Camp Pendleton, California, Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia,
and Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia. The committee directs
that, within amounts authorized for base closure and
realignment activities, the Secretary of Defense ensure the
timely execution of each of the military construction projects
in support of the base closure and realignment activities of
the military departments specified in this report. The list is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section contains the list of authorized defense
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 2000 in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000.
Section 2403--Military Housing Improvement Program
This section would authorize appropriations of $78,756,000
for credit to the Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund.
Section 2404--Energy Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects.
Section 2405--Authorization Of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year
2000. This section also would provide an overall limit on the
amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction
projects.
Section 2406--Increase in Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization for Military
Construction Projects at Pueblo Chemical Activity, Colorado
This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(division B of Public Law 104-201) to provide for an increase
in the amount authorized for military construction projects to
support chemical weapons and munitions destruction at Pueblo
Chemical Activity, Colorado.
Section 2407--Condition on Obligation of Military Construction Funds
for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities
This section would prohibit the obligation of funds
authorized for appropriation for military construction to
support the development of forward operating locations for the
drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department
of Defense in Manta, Ecuador, and Curacao, Netherlands
Antilles, until after the end of the 30-day period beginning on
the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to the
Congress a report describing in detail the purposes for which
such funds will be obligated and expended.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit
future requests for specific military construction projects for
the support of the drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities of the Department of Defense on a line-item basis,
consistent with the requirements for major military
construction projects, as part of the budget request for the
military construction and military family housing programs of
the Department of Defense for the fiscal year in which such
military construction projects are required.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $191,000,000 for the NATO
infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for
fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of
$191,000,000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations of $191,000,000
as the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment
program.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $77,572,000 for fiscal year
2000 for guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends
authorization of $437,701,000 to be distributed as follows:
Army National Guard..................................... $123,878,000
Air National Guard...................................... 151,170,000
Army Reserve............................................ 92,515,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... 48,564,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 21,574,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $437,701,000
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for
fiscal year 2000. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be
Specified by Law
This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities,
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will
expire on October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
before October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1997
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1997 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 2000, or the date of the enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later.
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1996
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1996 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 2000, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later.
Section 2704--Effective Date
This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1,
1999, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment
This section would amend section 2806 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that contributions by the Secretary of
Defense to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program may be made for construction projects in
support of the actual implementation of an approved military
operations plan.
Section 2802--Development of Ford Island, Hawaii
This section would authorize a series of special
authorities for the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, by the
Secretary of the Navy. The authorities would authorize the
Secretary to convey or lease excess real or personal property
in the State of Hawaii for the purpose of facilitating such
development and would authorize the Secretary to accept a lease
of any facility constructed under this authority in lieu of
cash payment for the sale or lease of real property under this
authority. In general, no lease entered into by the Secretary
under this section could exceed ten years and, upon the
termination of any lease, the Secretary would have the right of
first refusal to acquire the property. This section would
require the Secretary to use competitive procedures when
exercising any of the authorities provided by this section.
As consideration for the sale or lease of real or personal
property, the Secretary may accept cash, real property,
personal property, services, or any combination thereof, and in
no case shall the amount received be less than the fair market
value of the real or personal property conveyed or leased. This
section would establish an account on the books of the Treasury
known as the Ford Island Improvement Account to carry out
improvements and obtain property support services for property
or facilities on Ford Island.
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a master plan for the development of Ford Island to the
appropriate committees of Congress not later than 30 days prior
to exercising any of the authorities provided by this section.
The section would also require the Secretary, 30 days prior to
the commencement of any lease, sale, or exchange of real
property, to submit to the Congressional defense committees a
report detailing the terms and conditions of any transaction.
This section would prohibit the Secretary from acquiring,
constructing, or improving military family housing or
unaccompanied personnel housing under this authority in lieu of
the authority provided by subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title
10, United States Code. The provision would authorize the
Secretary to transfer funds from the Ford Island Improvement
Account to the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund and the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing fund for such purposes.
Section 2803--Restriction on Authority to Acquire or Construct
Ancillary Supporting Facilities for Housing Units
This section would amend section 2881 of title 10, United
States Code, to restrict the development of ancillary
supporting facilities in military housing projects undertaken
under the authority of subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10,
United States Code, which may be in direct competition with any
resale activities provided by the Defense Commissary Agency or
the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange
Service Command, Marine Corps exchanges, or any other
nonappropriated fund instrumentality which is conducted for the
benefit of the morale, welfare, and recreation of members of
the armed forces.
Section 2804--Planning and Design for Military Construction Projects
for Reserve Components
This section would amend section 18233 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify the authority of the Secretary of
Defense to contribute to the States funds for the design of
facilities to support the Federal mission of the reserve
components.
Section 2805--Limitation on Authority to Carry Out Small Projects for
Acquisition of Facilities for Reserve Components
This section would amend section 18233 of title 10, United
States Code, to increase the threshold for unspecified minor
construction projects for the support of the reserve components
from $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 and the threshold for projects
funded with operations and maintenance funds from $300,000 to
$1,000,000 solely for construction and maintenance projects to
remediate serious life, health, and safety deficiencies. The
section would not increase the budgetary requirements of the
Department of Defense.
Section 2806--Expansion of Entities Eligible to Participate in
Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military
Housing
This section would amend subchapter IV, chapter 169, of
title 10, United States Code, to expand the entities eligible
to participate in the alternative authorities for the
acquisition and improvement of military housing to include any
individual, corporation, firm, partnership, company, State or
local government, or housing authority of a State or local
government.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Extension of Authority for Lease of Land for Special
Operations Activities
This section would amend section 2680 of title 10, United
States Code, to extend, until September 30, 2005, the authority
of the Secretary of Defense to lease real property to support
special operations activities.
Section 2812--Utility Privatization Authority
This section would amend section 2688 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military
departments to enter into a contract for the receipt of utility
services in connection with the conveyance of a utility system
for a period not to exceed 50 years. The Section would further
amend section 2688 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
that the secretaries of the military department may convey
associated real property, in addition to easements and rights-
of-way, if such property is required to further the
privatization of a utility system. The section would further
amend section 2688 of title 10, United States Code, to permit
the secretaries of the military departments, in lieu of
carrying out a military construction project to construct,
repair, or replace a utility system, to use funds authorized
and appropriated for such a project to make a contribution
toward the cost of construction, repair, or replacement of the
utility system by the entity to which the utility system is
being conveyed.
Section 2813--Acceptance of Funds to Cover Administrative Expenses
Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions
This section would authorize the secretary of a military
department to accept reimbursement from non-federal entities
for the cost of administrative expenses relating to the
disposal of real property of the United States for which the
secretary will be the disposal agent.
Section 2814--Study and Report on Impacts to Military Readiness of
Proposed Land Management Changes on Public Lands in Utah
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study to evaluate the impact upon military training,
testing, and operational readiness of any proposed changes in
land management on public lands under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management in the State of Utah that are
adjacent to or near the Utah Test and Training Range and Dugway
Proving Ground or beneath the military operating areas,
restricted areas, and airspace that make up the Utah Test and
Training Area. The Secretary of Defense would conduct the study
in cooperation with the Secretary of the Air Force and the
Secretary of the Army and coordinate the study with the
Secretary of the Interior.
Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Section 2821--Continuation of Authority to Use Department of Defense
Base Closure Account 1990 for Activities Required to Close or Realign
Military Installations
This section would amend section 2906 of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (division B of Public Law
101-510), as amended, to extend the Treasury account known as
the ``Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990.'' The
account would be the sole source of funds to carry out
environmental restoration and mitigation activities and other
caretaker activities associated with real property resulting
from the closure or realignment of a military installation
pursuant to the a base closure law after the termination of the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to carry out a closure or
realignment under such authority.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Part I--Army Conveyances
Section 2831--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange
of jurisdiction on, a parcel of unimproved real property
consisting of approximately 152 acres at Fort Sam Houston,
Texas, between the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs. The parcel is to be incorporated into the
Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery.
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Kankakee, Illinois
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements to the City of Kankakee, Illinois. The property is
to be used for the economic development and other public
purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
would be borne by the City.
Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Fort Des Moines, Iowa
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements to the Fort Des Moines Black Officers Memorial,
Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized in the State of Iowa.
The property is to be used for the purpose of a memorial and
for educational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for
the conveyance would be borne by the Corporation.
Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Army Maintenance Support Activity
(Marine) Number 84, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately five acres, to the
Borough of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. The property is to be
used for recreational or economic development purposes. The
cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne
by the Borough. The section would also provide for the
reversionary interest of the United States in the conveyed real
property and any improvements thereon in the event the
Secretary determines that the conveyed property is not used in
accordance with the condition of conveyance.
Section 2835--Land Conveyances, Army Docks and Related Property, Alaska
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of less than one-tenth of an acre, to
the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska. The property is to be
used for the furtherance of navigation-related commerce. The
cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne
by the City. The section would also authorize the Secretary of
the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real
property with improvements, consisting of approximately 6.13
acres in Whittier, Alaska, to the Alaska Railroad Corporation.
The property is to be used for economic development purposes.
The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be
borne by the Corporation.
Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Fort Huachuca, Arizona
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 130 acres at Fort
Huachuca, Arizona, to the Veterans Services Commission of the
State of Arizona. The property is to be used for the
establishment of a State-run veterans' cemetery. The cost of
any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the
Commission.
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Cannon Falls,
Minnesota
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements to the Cannon Falls Area Schools, Minnesota,
Independent School District Number 252. The property is to be
used for educational purposes. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the District.
Section 2838--Land Conveyance, Nike Battery 80 Family Housing Site,
East Hanover Township, New Jersey
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 13.88 acres near East
Hanover, New Jersey, to the Township Council of East Hanover.
The property is to be used for the development of affordable
housing and for recreational purposes. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Township.
Section 2839--Land Exchange, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately one-third of an acre at the Rock Island
Arsenal, Illinois, to the City of Moline, Illinois. The
property is to be used for the purpose of construction by the
City of an entrance and exit ramp for the bridge crossing the
southeast end of the island containing the Arsenal. As
consideration for the conveyance, the City would convey to the
United States a parcel of real property consisting of
approximately two-tenths of an acre located in the vicinity of
the real property to be conveyed by the Secretary. The cost of
any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the
City.
Section 2840--Modification of Land Conveyance, Joliet Army Ammunition
Plant, Illinois
This section would amend section 2922 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B
of Public Law 104-106) to place additional conditions on the
conveyance of certain real property at Joliet Army Ammunition
Plant to Will County, Illinois, for a landfill. The section
would require that the landfill may only contain waste
generated in Will County or waste generated in municipalities
located at least in part in Will County. The section would also
require that the landfill be closed and capped after 23 years
of operation.
Section 2841--Land Conveyances, Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
Minnesota
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately four acres, at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant, Minnesota, to the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. The
property is to be used for the purpose of permitting the City
to construct a city hall complex. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the City. The
section would also authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately 35 acres, at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant, Minnesota, to Ramsey County, Minnesota. The property is
to be used for the purpose of permitting the County to
construct a maintenance facility. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the County. As
consideration for the conveyances, both the City and the County
would make the facilities to be constructed available for use
by the Minnesota National Guard at no cost.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
No. 387, Dallas, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements consisting
of approximately 314 acres and including the Naval Weapons
Industrial Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas, Texas, to the City of
Dallas. The property is to be used for economic development or
other public purposes. The Secretary would be authorized to
convey other fixtures located on the property if the Secretary
determines such fixtures are not required by the Navy for other
purposes. The section would authorize the Secretary to make the
conveyance without consideration if determined to be in the
best interest of the United States. If the City conveys any
portion of the parcel to a private entity, the City shall pay
the United States an amount equal to the fair market value as
determined by the Secretary of the portion conveyed at the time
of its initial conveyance.
Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center,
Orange County, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 2.4 acres in Orange
County, Texas, to the Orange County Navigation and Port
District. The property is to be used for economic development,
educational purposes, and the furtherance of navigation-related
commerce. The section would also provide for the reversionary
interest of the United States in the conveyed real property and
any improvements thereon in the event the Secretary determines
that the conveyed property is not used in accordance with the
condition of conveyance.
Section 2853--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,
North Carolina
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of unimproved real
property, consisting of approximately 20 acres at Marine Corps
Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, to the State of
North Carolina. The property is to be used for educational
purposes. The conveyance would be subject to the condition that
the State grant easements and rights-of-way necessary to ensure
that the use of the parcel is compatible with the operations of
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the State.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
Section 2861--Conveyance of Fuel Supply Line, Pease Air Force Base, New
Hampshire
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property
with improvements, consisting of approximately 14.87 acres at
the former Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire and containing a
deactivated fuel supply line, to the Pease Development
Authority. The property is to be used for the support of the
New Hampshire Air National Guard. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Authority.
Section 2862--Land Conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey a parcel of real property with improvements,
consisting of approximately 33.07 acres, to the City of Panama
City, Florida. The property is to be used for economic
development or other purposes. As consideration for the
conveyance, the City would pay to the United States an amount
equal to the fair market value of the property as determined by
the Secretary. The Secretary would use the funds paid by the
City for the improvement or maintenance of military family
housing units at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. The cost of
any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the
City.
Section 2863--Land Conveyance, Port of Anchorage, Alaska
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
and the Secretary of the Interior to convey, without
consideration, two parcels of real property with improvements,
consisting of approximately 14.22 acres in Anchorage, Alaska,
to the Port of Anchorage. The property is to be used for
economic development purposes. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Port.
Section 2864--Land Conveyance, Forestport Test Annex, New York
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property
with improvements of approximately 164 acres in Herkimer
County, New York, and approximately 18 acres in Oneida County,
New York, to the Town of Ohio, New York. The property is to be
used for economic development purposes and for other public
purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
would be borne by the Town.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 2871--Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery
This section would authorize the transfer of real property,
and exchange of jurisdiction, between the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of the Army to provide for the expansion of
Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia. The property to be
transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary
of the Army consists of three parcels, totaling approximately
36.5 acres, located at the Navy Annex of the Pentagon. The
provision would also require the Secretary of the Army to
modify the boundary of Arlington National Cemetery to include
two parcels of real property, totaling approximately eight
acres, situated in Fort Myer, Virginia, contiguous to the
Cemetery.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $12.4 billion for Department
of Energy national security programs, including $4.5 billion
for weapons activities, $5.8 billion for defense environmental
restoration and waste management, $1.8 billion for other
defense activities, and $73.0 million for defense nuclear waste
disposal. The committee recommends $12.3 billion, a decrease of
$75.5 million. The following table summarizes the request and
the committee recommendations:
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
The budget request contained $341.0 million for the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI).
ASCI is an effort to develop a computer capable of 100
trillion operations a second by 2004. This computer will be
powerful enough to conduct three dimensional simulations of
nuclear explosions as a means of assuring the safety,
reliability, and effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons in the
absence of actual testing. The committee understands the
significance of ASCI for science-based stockpile stewardship
and is encouraged by the technical progress demonstrated to
date. However, the committee remains concerned by the very
aggressive program schedule. The committee notes that the
program request is 14 percent higher than the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The budget request also
includes $34.0 million in new ASCI-related construction and
$67.3 million for the Numeric Environment for Weapons
Simulation (NEWS), a 138 percent increase compared to the
fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Directly related to ASCI, NEWS
is an effort to develop visualization tools to allow nuclear
weapons scientists to understand the vast amounts of data
generated by ASCI simulations.
The committee is also concerned with ASCI's pace compared
to other science tools the Department of Energy needs to
support science based stockpile stewardship. Ignition
experiments in the National Ignition Facility, for example, are
projected to start in 2006. Also, advanced radiographic images
of the initial phases of a nuclear weapon explosion will not be
available under current planning until 2005.
The Department justifies ASCI's aggressive schedule in part
on the fact that nuclear weapons designers with the testing
experience needed to interpret the results of ASCI simulations
are aging and retiring. However, the most recent data provided
by the Department shows that the decline in this population is
expected to level out from 2004 to 2007. Further, the committee
believes that the Department could have access to such
expertise if they sought it.
In light of these considerations, the committee believes
that an aggressive but more moderately paced ASCI program is
justified. Therefore, the committee recommends $316.0 million
for ASCI, a decrease of $25.0 million.
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative Construction Projects
The budget request contained $8.0 million for construction
of a terascale simulation facility at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and $26.0 million for the strategic
computing complex at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Both of these facilities will house supercomputers being
developed in the ASCI program. They are very similar in size,
scope, and purpose yet the total estimated cost of the Los
Alamos facility is 20 percent higher than the Lawrence
Livermore facility. Although the committee recommends the
requested amounts, it directs the Secretary of Energy not to
obligate any of the funds for the Los Alamos strategic
computing complex until a full and independent review of the
cost and schedule of this project has been completed and the
results of the review have been transmitted to the
Congressional defense committees.
Arms Control and Nonproliferation
The budget request contained $296.0 million for arms
control, a $39.1 million increase to the amount appropriated
for fiscal year 1999.
The committee notes that the Department of Energy was not
able to expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for arms
control and, as a result, $144.1 million of these funds were
brought forward into fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1999
appropriation of $256.9 million was added to this amount,
totaling $401.0 million of funds available for arms control
during fiscal year 1999. Based on this program's expenditure
rate for the first half of fiscal year 1999 and the program's
historical expenditure rate for the second half of prior fiscal
years, the General Accounting Office (GAO) projects that the
carryover balance for this program will increase to $162.5
million and will exceed the Department's 15 percent target
carryover balance going into fiscal year 2000.
Consequently, the committee recommends $206.0 million, a
decrease of $90.0 million. The committee further recommends
that $20.0 million of this decrease should be assessed to the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program and the
Nuclear Cities Initiative. The committee believes that the
carryover balance for arms control is excessive and that,
before initiating new projects with fiscal year 2000 funds, the
Department should complete ongoing programs with prior year
funds.
Commercializing Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
The Department of Energy's Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP) program was established to develop employment
opportunities for Russian scientists to avoid risking the
marketing of their weapons of mass destruction knowledge to
countries of proliferation concern or terrorist organizations.
The objectives of the IPP program are initially to engage these
weapons scientists in productive nonmilitary work and to then
transition this work into long-term employment in the high-
technology commercial marketplace. This long-term employment
would be self-sustaining and not dependent on continued U.S.
financial assistance.
According to a February, 1999 report by the General
Accounting Office (GAO), none of the 79 IPP projects has been a
commercial success. The first step in a IPP process is the
identification and verification of technologies and skills
possessed by the institutes and scientists that can have
commercial applications. However, most of the IPP projects
never progress past this stage. As acknowledged by the director
of the IPP program, commercializing science and engineering
projects is very difficult in the United States and much more
difficult in Russia.
The committee believes that due to the lack of commercial
success of the IPP projects, the program has been, and will be
reliant on financial support by the U.S. government. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a
report on efforts of the Department to make IPP projects
commercially viable. The report should discuss projects the
Department is pursuing within the IPP program that utilize more
commonly held production technologies with the major emphasis
on the manufacture of commercially marketable products, versus
current attempts at utilizing high technology. The report
should also contain information on the Department's criteria
and timetable for terminating IPP projects that have shown
little chance of commercial success. The report should be
submitted to the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the
Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives by
April 1, 2000.
Commission to Review Nuclear Policy and Management
The committee believes a broad, high level review of issues
pertaining to the management and oversight of nuclear weapons
policy is timely. Since the last such review in the 1980s, the
Cold War has ended, U.S. nuclear forces have been reshaped and
resized, the nuclear weapons programs at the Department of
Energy (DOE) have changed in scope and structure, and nuclear
weapons budgets have declined dramatically. Several studies,
including those by the Commission on Sustaining U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Expertise in 1999 and the Institute for Defense
Analyses in 1997, have noted a need for better coordination
between the Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE. The recent
reorganization of the Office of Secretary of Defense also
suggests a lack of focus on nuclear matters within DOD.
Consequently, a top level commission to review the management
and oversight of nuclear policy, requirements, forces, and
budgets in the context of these changed circumstances would be
very useful.
Therefore, the committee recommends a series of provisions
(sections 3151-3159) that would establish a commission to
conduct such a review and report its results to the
Congressional defense committees by January 1, 2001.
Comptroller General Audit of Department of Energy Contract Management
Practices
The committee is aware of the results of the February 1999
Defense Contract Audit Agency report to the Congress which
indicated that the cost accounting practices of the prime
contractor at the Hanford site were within acceptable
standards. However, the committee is also aware of additional
allegations of possible fraud and abuse regarding subcontractor
management practices at the Hanford site.
Consequently, the committee continues to be concerned about
the Department of Energy's management of contract activities,
particularly at the Hanford site. Therefore, the committee
requests that the Comptroller General conduct an investigation
of these activities and report the findings to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services.
Construction Projects
The budget request contained $61.0 million for core
stockpile stewardship construction projects and $94.7 million
for core stockpile management construction projects.
The conference report for the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Rept. 105-749) forbade the obligation
of funding for new construction starts authorized in fiscal
year 1999 until an independent assessment validated the cost
and schedule for those specific projects. Most of these
independent assessments have not been completed, and those that
are complete have identified some difficulties that should be
addressed before the projects proceed. Given these early
results, the committee believes that the remaining independent
assessments could find similar difficulties that would lead to
delays in the release of fiscal year 1999 funds, and thus would
reduce the fiscal year 2000 requirement. Consequently, the
committee recommends $51.0 million for core stockpile
stewardship construction, a decrease of $10.0 million, and
$84.7 million for core stockpile management construction, a
decrease of $10.0 million.
The committee notes that the budget request contained no
funds in Stockpile Management designated for infrastructure
construction but that such a request was made in Stockpile
Stewardship, providing a more stable foundation for sustaining
infrastructure at the national laboratories. The committee
recommends that the Department include funding for Stockpile
Management infrastructure construction in its fiscal year 2001
budget request.
Education
The budget request contained $29.8 million for educational
activities, including funding for math and science education
for local schools near the national weapons laboratories, the
National Atomic Museum, the Los Alamos County School District,
and the Northern New Mexico Educational Enrichment Foundation.
The committee understands the importance of primary and
secondary education in math and science, but believes that
funding of these activities by the Defense Programs account
provides no direct benefit to the Department's core national
security mission. Consequently, the committee recommends no
funding for these education programs.
However, the committee notes that the Commission on
Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise recommended
that the Department's laboratories and production plants
``establish and implement plans on a priority basis for
replenishing essential personnel.'' The commission noted that
significant downsizing of the nuclear weapons complex has led
to an aging workforce, a trend that will lead to ``a crisis of
talent within the next 15 years'' unless reversed.
The committee believes that encouraging talented young
Americans to contribute to the nuclear weapons effort is
important to the nation's long term security. Therefore, the
committee recommends amendments to revitalize the Department of
Energy fellowship program for graduate and post doctoral
students who are specializing in physical sciences relevant to
the needs of the nuclear weapons complex authorized in section
3140 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106). The committee recommends $5.0
million for this fellowship program.
Eligibility to Bid on Excess Department of Energy Equipment at the
Savannah River Site
The committee understands that McDuffie County, Georgia, is
currently not on the list of counties whose residents are
eligible to submit bids for the purchase of surplus Department
of Energy equipment at the Savannah River Site. Therefore, the
committee recommends that the Department add McDuffie County to
that list.
Environmental Management Science Program
The budget request contained $32.0 million for the
Environmental Management Science Program, a decrease of $15.0
million from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
The committee recognizes the importance of developing
advanced environmental cleanup and remediation technologies
that can both reduce long-term costs and lessen the damage
resulting from nuclear waste. Consequently, the committee
recommends $42.0 million, an increase of $10.0 million to
maintain a more robust environmental management science
program.
Environmental Management, Environmental, Safety and Health
The budget request contained $20.0 million for public
health activities for the Department's Office of Environmental
Management, an $8.0 million increase to the amount appropriated
for fiscal year 1999. The committee believes that this increase
has not been adequately justified and, therefore, recommends
$12.0 million, a decrease of $8.0 million. In addition, the
committee directs that the $12.0 million be transferred to the
Department's Office of Environment, Safety and Health in order
to provide more effective oversight of these programs.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
The national defense budget function (budget function 050)
request contained $150.0 million for the FUSRAP. The committee
acknowledges the importance of remediating these former
Manhattan Project sites and notes that the Army Corps of
Engineers has been tasked to perform this service. However,
because the sites are commercially owned, the committee
believes it is more appropriate for this program to be funded
by the civil Army Corps of Engineers portion of the budget
(budget function 301).
Accordingly, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) contained a Sense of
Congress provision recommending that this program be funded
within the Army Corps of Engineers budget. Since the Department
chose to ignore this recommendation, the committee recommends
no funding for FUSRAP within budget function 050, a decrease of
$150.0 million.
Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Compliance
The budget request contained $376.3 million for
environmental management at the Hanford site. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.9 million in order to achieve four
compliance deadlines established by the tri-party agreement
among the Department, the State of Washington's Department of
Ecology, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant Deactivation
The budget request contained $136.2 million to stabilize,
repackage, and remove all remaining plutonium materials from
the Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) and to deactivate
the plant complex. The committee understands that the large
quantity of plutonium stored at the PFP is a significant safety
hazard and, therefore, recommends $146.4 million, an increase
of $10.2 million to accelerate the stabilization and
repackaging of the plutonium for permanent storage.
Hanford Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning
The budget request contained $10.8 million for facility
decommissioning at the Hanford Site. The committee recommends
$22.2 million, an increase of $11.4 million to accelerate
progress on the cocooning of the reactor cores. The committee
believes that safe storage of these reactor cores on an interim
basis will permit the Department of Energy to more effectively
use its remediation funds for decontaminating and
decommissioning ancillary buildings at Hanford, thereby saving
millions of dollars in annual maintenance and surveillance
costs.
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Post
2006 Completion
The budget request contained $291.3 million for the INEEL
Post 2006 Completion account, including $7.0 million for the
Idaho Waste Management Complex (IWMC) project. The committee
understands the funding requested for the IWMC is to be
augmented by $43.0 million in prior year carryover balances
from the Pit Nine project within this account and notes that
the resultant $50.0 million in available funds would represent
a $26.3 million increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal
year 1999.
The committee believes that the available prior year
carryover balance from the Pit Nine project is excessive and,
therefore, recommends a decrease of $26.3 million from the
INEEL Post 2006 Completion account. The committee makes this
reduction without prejudice and believes that it should not
have a negative impact on this project.
Inertial Confinement Fusion
The budget request contained $217.6 million for inertial
confinement fusion (ICF) operations and maintenance, including
$30.5 million for the University of Rochester's Laboratory for
Laser Energetics (LLE).
The ICF program includes the development and construction
of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which will use a large
array of lasers focused to achieve a fusion reaction in a small
quantity of hydrogen. The program will provide experimental
data to scientists, allowing them to confirm computer models on
the behavior of nuclear weapons explosions.
The committee understands that the budget request does not
include sufficient funding to initiate design work for a
cryogenic target needed to achieve hydrogen ignition or to
provide diagnostics that will allow NIF to measure the physical
results of testing. The committee believes that additional
funding would reduce schedule and technical risk for these
important aspects of the NIF effort, and therefore recommends
$227.6 million for ICF operations and maintenance, an increase
of $10.0 million. Further, the committee believes that LLE's
Omega laser continues to make important contributions to the
ICF program and directs that the Department fund this facility
at the requested level.
In-Tank Precipitation Process
The budget request contained $42.1 million for the high-
level waste treatment at the Savannah River Site. The committee
notes that as a result of equipment problems associated with
the release of explosive benzene that occurred in start-up
testing, the Salt Processing Plant must be redesigned.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $92.1 million, an
increase of $50.0 million to initiate redesign and avoid
further delays to the vitrification program.
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
The budget request contained $145.0 million for
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
(MPC&A), a $4.9 million increase to the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 1999. The objective of this program is to improve
the protection of nuclear weapons-usable materials at
facilities and institutions in the former Soviet Union. The
committee believes that the MPC&A program is one of the most
important of the Department's arms control efforts.
Therefore, the committee recommends $172.0 million for
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting, an
increase of $27.0 million.
International Nuclear Safety
The budget request contained $34.0 million for
International Nuclear Safety, a $4.0 million increase to the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The objective of this
program is to improve the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear
reactors in countries of the former Soviet Union.
The committee notes that the Department was not able to
expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for
International Nuclear Safety and, as a result, $93.6 million of
these funds were brought forward into fiscal year 1999. Adding
the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $30.0 million to this
amount, a total of $123.6 million of funds are available for
International Nuclear Safety during fiscal year 1999. Based on
this program's expenditure rate for the first half of fiscal
year 1999 and the program's historical expenditure rate for the
second half of prior fiscal years, the General Accounting
Office projects that the carryover balance for this program
will exceed the Department's 15 percent target carryover
balance by $23.7 million going into fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, the committee recommends $15.3 million, a
decrease of $18.7 million. The committee believes that the
carryover balance for International Nuclear Safety is excessive
and that, before initiating new projects with fiscal year 2000
funds, the Department should complete ongoing programs with
prior year funds. In addition, the committee understands that
the Agency for International Development may supplement the
Department's fiscal year 2000 International Nuclear Safety
program by amounts that have not yet been identified.
Naval Reactors
The budget request contained $665.0 million for the naval
reactors program.
The committee believes that the program office has done an
excellent job of managing the development, construction,
maintenance, and disposal of naval nuclear reactors. However,
the committee is concerned that the budget request appears
insufficient to fully support planned non-pressure vessel
removal at the Kesselring site in New York and remediation
efforts at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory. Therefore, the committee recommends $681.0 million,
an increase of $16.0 million to fund these activities.
Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex
On December 21, 1998, the Secretary of Energy announced
that he was deferring for a year a decision on whether to
consolidate existing stockpile management contracts for the
Kansas City, Pantex, and Y-12 plants. While the committee
supports the motivation underlying the consolidation proposal,
the committee believes that the decision to defer resolution of
this issue is justified.
The Department expressed interest in contract consolidation
based on the belief that it would offer greater efficiencies in
coordinating plant activities, cleaner lines of authority and
responsibility, reduced personnel levels, and cost savings.
However, the committee notes that a consolidated contract could
undermine competition for plant management in the future; few
savings have been identified, the costs of implementing the
modified contract structure could be considerable, and
Departmental oversight of and leverage over a single contractor
managing virtually the entire production complex could be
problematic. While remaining open to the idea of consolidation
where it makes sense, the committee believes that these issues
must be thoroughly addressed and presented to the Congress
before any decision to consolidate the production complex
contracts is made.
Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reserve
The Commission on Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Expertise, in its March 1999 report, noted that the nuclear
weapons workforce is aging rapidly and that expertise in a
number of technical areas is in dangerously short supply. The
commission also pointed out that, as these experts retire and
leave the nuclear workforce, the Department of Energy is doing
an inadequate job of transferring specific and detailed
knowledge related to the nuclear weapons stockpile to a new
generation of experts. Further, the commission argued that the
nuclear weapons complex is deficient in its ability to
reconstitute the expertise required in the event of an
emergency or an urgent need to resume testing.
The committee concurs with the commission's conclusion that
personnel with critical skills who leave the nuclear weapons
program represent an unexploited national asset, and endorses
the commission's recommendation that the Department establish a
nuclear weapons personnel reserve to be composed of current or
former employees of the nuclear complex with skills critical to
the Department's mission. Therefore, the committee urges the
Secretary to establish such a reserve.
Oak Ridge Operations Compliance Obligations
The budget request contained $530.6 million for the Oak
Ridge Operations site. The committee notes that several
environmental cleanup and remediation project milestones that
have been missed or delayed due to insufficient funding.
Consequently, the committee recommends $539.2 million, an
increase of $8.6 million to ensure that these compliance
requirements are met.
Office of Counterintelligence
The budget request contained $18.6 million for the Office
of Counterintelligence to be augmented by an additional $12.6
million contributed by the DOE nuclear weapons laboratories.
The committee recommends $31.2 million for the Office of
Counterintelligence, an increase of $12.6 million. The
committee is very concerned over reports of espionage
activities at the DOE laboratories and believes that the
Director of the Office of Counterintelligence needs to have the
full $31.2 million available for obligation at the beginning of
the fiscal year rather than waiting for 40 percent of the
requirement to become available at some later date, if at all.
Pit Production
The committee understands that substantial progress has
been made to reestablish a near-term plutonium pit production
capability at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and to define
the longer-term pit production capacity required to support the
nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee also notes that the
pit production manufacturing process has been designed,
established by, and, in the current production plan, will be
performed at Los Alamos.
Based on Department of Energy analysis, the committee
believes that the requirement for additional pit production
capacity in the future is unambiguous. However, the committee
also believes that a science oriented laboratory is not the
best institution to retain responsibility for pit manufacture
or to expand pit manufacturing capacity. The committee strongly
urges the Secretary of Energy to maximize the ability of
industry to manage both the production process and the
expansion effort by planning to transition pit production from
laboratory to industrial operations prior to expansion of pit
production capacity.
Program Direction for Defense Programs
The budget request contained $246.5 million for Defense
Programs program direction.
The committee notes that the request includes a $10.0
million increase in salaries, benefits, travel, and advisory
and support services compared to funding appropriated for
fiscal year 1999.
The committee recommends $236.5 million, a decrease of
$10.0 million. Of this amount, the committee directs that $15.0
million may only be obligated for voluntary separation
incentive payments.
Program Direction for Environmental Management
The budget request contained $349.4 million for
environmental management program direction, which includes
salaries, personnel, contractor support, and advisory and
assistance funding. This amount represents a $12.3 million
increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The
committee finds no justification for such an increase, and
notes that the program direction request for defense programs
has been reduced from fiscal year 1999 levels. Consequently,
the committee recommends $327.1 million, a decrease of $22.3
million.
Records Declassification
The budget request contained $15.9 million for records
declassification, a $7.4 million increase to the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
The committee believes that there are more compelling uses
for national defense funds than for declassifying historical
records. Therefore, the committee recommends $8.5 million, a
decrease of $7.4 million.
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project
The budget request contained $657.2 million for the Rocky
Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project. For the
last three years, the committee has emphasized the importance
of providing adequate funding for the cleanup efforts at sites
that are nearing closure. The Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site was originally scheduled to close in 2010, but
the Department of Energy is working to accelerate its closure
by 2006. The committee notes that the Department and the
associated contractors have confidence in the accelerated
closure schedule, which would save an estimated $1.3 billion.
The committee supports the accelerated closure plan and,
therefore, recommends $695.2 million, an increase of $38.0
million for this purpose.
Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment
The budget request contained $14.5 million for operating
projects at the Savannah River Site. The committee is concerned
that both capital equipment and safety and security systems
equipment needs at this site have gone unmet due to funding
shortfalls. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$20.0 million to upgrade fire protection and security systems,
to replace domestic water and telephone systems, and to support
engineering facilities for health physics, analytical
chemistry, and environmental monitoring.
Security Investigations
The budget request contained $30.0 million for security
investigations.
The Security Investigations Program funds background
investigations for Department of Energy (DOE) federal staff and
DOE contractors at the Department's headquarters. The committee
notes that the budget request assumes that DOE program offices
will offset or contribute $20.0 million of this expense for
background investigations of their staff members and
headquarters contractors resulting in a total of $30.0 million
in available funds to execute the fiscal year 2000 security
investigation program. Therefore, the committee recommends
$10.0 million, a decrease of $20.0 million and assumes the
transfer of $20.0 million from DOE program offices to the
Security Investigations Program.
Stockpile Management
The budget request contained $2.0 billion for stockpile
management, including $240.8 million for the Pantex plant,
$287.5 million for the Kansas City plant, $374.2 million for
the Y-12 plant, and $127.4 million for the Savannah River Site.
The committee notes that the request represents a decrease
of four percent compared to the amount appropriated for fiscal
year 1999. This decrease was imposed even though the required
workload at the nuclear weapons production complex has been
increased. While greater efficiencies and intelligent planning
at the plants can meet some of the increased demand at lower
funding levels, the committee believes that serious problems in
the complex will remain. The Committee on Sustaining U.S.
Nuclear Weapons Expertise identified multiple ``fragile skill
areas'' and a limited ability of the plants to retain and
replenish personnel with the proper skills as overall
employment levels continue to fall. The plants must also
continue to reduce their size and modernize their physical
infrastructure. The committee notes that while stable funding
for infrastructure improvements to the national laboratories
has been identified, no such funding has been programmed for
the plants. Finally, advanced technologies will be required to
improve processes, increase efficiency, and meet future
workload requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends $270.8 million for the
Pantex plant, an increase of $30.0 million to meet increased
surveillance, assembly and disassembly workload demands, to
fund the Enhanced Surveillance Program and the Advanced
Manufacturing, Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT)
initiatives, and to support necessary infrastructure
improvements and recapitalization projects.
The committee also recommends $317.5 million for the Kansas
City plant, an increase of $30.0 million to support increased
workload, ADAPT initiatives and necessary infrastructure
improvements and recapitalization projects.
The committee further recommends $404.2 million for the Y-
12 plant, an increase of $30.0 million to support a site-wide
environmental impact statement necessary to modernize Y-12
facilities and necessary infrastructure improvements and
recapitalization projects.
Finally, the committee recommends $134.4 million for the
Savannah River Site, an increase of $7.0 million to support
additional tritium reservoir testing and necessary capital
investments.
Stockpile Management Fissile Material Storage and Disposition
The budget request contained $200.0 million for fissile
materials control and disposition. It also contained, within
Stockpile Management, $22.0 million for storage of excess
special nuclear material at Los Alamos National Laboratory and
the Y-12 plant; $10.0 million for storage and surveillance of
excess plutonium pits at the Pantex plant; $3.0 million for a
pit disassembly conversion demonstration project at Los Alamos
National Laboratory; and $4.0 million for the Parallax Project
at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Based on discussions with senior Department of Energy
officials, the committee believes these projects fall outside
of the Stockpile Management mission of production and
surveillance and are more appropriately funded within the Other
Defense accounts for fissile materials control and disposition.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $39.0 million
to the Stockpile Management account, and $239.0 million for
fissile materials control and disposition, an increase of $39.0
million.
Technology Partnerships
The budget request contained $22.2 million for technology
partnerships.
Technology partnerships are intended to provide Defense
Programs expertise to a variety of commercial partners through
projects that enhance Defense Programs capabilities. The
Department of Energy believes, and the committee concurs, that
the projects funded in this program are of lower priority than
activities funded in the core stockpile stewardship mission.
However, the committee is mindful that the Department has
made certain commitments in the past to its commercial partners
concerning shared funding responsibilities in joint projects.
One such commitment is with the American Textile (AMTEX)
Partnership; however, no funding for AMTEX is contained in the
budget request. The committee believes that another year of
funding for this project would satisfy the Department's
obligation to its partners in the commercial textile industry.
Another such commitment is with the Amarillo Plutonium Research
Center and the committee believes that the Secretary of Energy
should consider continuation of this cooperative effort beyond
fiscal year 2000.
Consequently, the committee recommends $14.5 million for
technology partnerships, a decrease of $7.7 million. Of this
amount, $5.0 million is for AMTEX and $5.0 million is for the
Amarillo Plutonium Research Center.
Worker and Community Transition
The budget request contained $30.0 million for Worker and
Community Transition, a $1.8 million increase to the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
The committee notes that the Department of Energy was not
able to expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for
Worker and Community Transition, and, as a result, $72.1
million of these funds were carried forward into fiscal year
1999. Adding the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $28.2
million to this amount leaves a total of $100.3 million
available for Worker and Community Transition during fiscal
year 1999. Based on this program's expenditure rate for the
first half of fiscal year 1999 and the program's historical
expenditure rate for the second half of prior fiscal years, the
General Accounting Office projects that the carryover balance
for this program will exceed the Department's 15 percent target
carryover balance by $53.0 million going into fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, the committee recommends $20.0 million, a
decrease of $10.0 million. The committee further recommends
that none of this decrease should come from the amounts
specifically requested for fiscal year 2000 for the Idaho
Operations Office, the Ohio Field Office, the Oak Ridge
Operations Office, and the Richland Operations Office. The
committee believes that the carryover balance for Worker and
Community Transition is excessive and that, before initiating
new projects with fiscal year 2000 funds, the Department should
complete ongoing programs with prior year funds.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Section 3101--Weapons Activities
This section would authorize Department of Energy weapons
activity funding for fiscal year 2000.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy
environmental restoration and waste management activities for
fiscal year 2000.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy
other defense activities for fiscal year 2000.
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear
waste disposal activities of the Department of Energy for
fiscal year 2000.
Section 3105--Defense Environmental Management Privatization
This section would authorize funds for privatization
initiatives in carrying out environmental restoration and waste
management activities necessary for Department of Energy
national security programs.
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
Section 3121--Reprogramming
This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in
excess of 110 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for
the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the
Congressional defense committees and a period of 60 days has
elapsed after the date on which the notification is received.
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects
This section would limit the initiation of ``general plant
projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost
for any project exceeds $5.0 million. However, if the Secretary
of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any project will
exceed $5.0 million, the Congressional defense committees must
be notified of the reasons for the cost variation.
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects
This section would permit any construction project to be
initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the
amount authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total
estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for
such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy
must report in detail to the Congressional defense committees
and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative
days. This section would also specify that the 125 percent
limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under
$5.0 million.
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
This section would permit funds authorized by the bill to
be transferred to other agencies of the government for
performance of work for which the funds were authorized and
appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such
funds with the authorizations of the agency to which they are
transferred. This section would also limit to no more than five
percent the amount of funds that may be transferred between
accounts in the Department of Energy that were authorized by
the bill.
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
This section would limit the Secretary of Energy's
authority to request construction funding until the Secretary
has certified a conceptual design has been completed, except in
the case of emergencies.
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction
Activities
This section would permit, in addition to any advance
planning and construction design otherwise authorized by the
bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national
security program construction project whenever the Secretary
determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to
protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of
national defense, or to protect property.
Section 3127--Funds Available for All National Security Programs of the
Department of Energy
This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of
this bill, amounts for management and support activities and
for general plant projects to be made available for use, when
necessary, in connection with all national security programs of
the Department of Energy.
Section 3128--Availability of Funds
This section would allow amounts appropriated for operation
and maintenance or for plant projects to remain available until
expended. This section would provide an exception for program
direction funding which would remain available until the end of
fiscal year 2000.
Section 3129--Transfers of Defense Environmental Management Funds
This section would provide the manager of each field office
of the Department of Energy with the limited authority to
transfer defense environmental management funds from a program
or project under the jurisdiction of the office to another such
program or project.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3131--Limitation on Use at Department of Energy Laboratories of
Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
Program
This section would establish a limitation that not more
than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for the Initiatives
for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program for any fiscal year
could be spent at Department of Energy laboratories.
The IPP program was established to provide employment for
the thousands of unemployed and underemployed Russian nuclear
weapons scientists in projects with commercial applications,
thereby providing them with an incentive to remain in Russia
and resist the temptation to emigrate to countries of
proliferation concern.
The committee notes that the Department of Energy's
laboratories are involved in the IPP program to assist in
designing and monitoring IPP research projects. However, the
General Accounting Office has reported that 51 percent of IPP
funds are consumed by the laboratories and that a majority of
those expenditures are used for administrative support fees.
The committee believes that the amount of IPP funds spent at
the laboratories should be limited so that more funds are spent
in Russia for the intended purpose of the program.
Section 3132--Prohibition on Use for Payment of Russian Government
Taxes and Customs Duties of Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention Program
This section would prohibit the payment of Russian taxes or
customs duties with funds appropriated for the Department of
Energy's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP)
program.
The IPP program was established to provide employment for
the thousands of unemployed and underemployed Russian nuclear
weapon scientists. The intent of the program is to provide
salaries to these scientists for working on commercial research
projects, thereby persuading them to remain in Russia and to
refrain from emigrating to countries or projects of
proliferation concern.
However, the effectiveness of the program is severely
diminished by the amount of IPP funds that are taxed by the
Russian government. According to a November 1998 DOE report, 53
percent of the IPP funds that are sent to Russia are extracted
by the Russian government in the form of a variety of taxes,
customs duties, and fees. As a result, the Russian scientists
receive less than 50 percent of those IPP funds actually spent
in Russia.
Section 3133--Modification of Laboratory Directed Research and
Development to Provide Funds for Theater Ballistic Missile Defense
This provision would amend section 3132 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-
510) by reducing the maximum laboratory directed research and
development (LDRD) surcharge from six percent to three percent.
It would also establish a three percent surcharge to fund
theater ballistic missile defense (TMD) development projects at
the national weapons laboratories. The provision would require
that such projects be established and executed consistent with
the memorandum of understanding between the Secretaries of
Energy and Defense that was required by section 3131 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85). For fiscal year 2000, the provision would direct
funds available for TMD to the development and test of kinetic
energy theater ballistic missile defense warheads based on
advanced explosive technology.
The committee strongly believes that the development of
effective ballistic missile defenses remains a critical
national security requirement. The committee recognizes the
national laboratories as a valuable, multi-mission, national
security resource and believes that the high priority of
meeting ballistic missile defense requirements dictates the use
of their technical expertise.
The committee believes that kinetic energy warheads based
on advanced explosive technology could be a valuable technical
adjunct to hit-to-kill technology and notes that such a program
would take advantage of the Department of Energy's expertise
and previous research in advanced explosive technology. The
committee expects that this effort would focus on liquid metal
jets produced by precisely initiated explosives, multiple
pellet generation aimed by phased initiation, and a smart
pellet projector.
Section 3134--Support of Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Activities
of the Department of Defense
This section would authorize $30.0 million for stockpile
stewardship for theater ballistic missile defense technology
development, concept demonstration, and integrated testing to
improve reliability and reduce risk in hit-to-kill interceptors
for theater ballistic missile defenses; for science and
engineering teams to address technical problems identified by
the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO) which are critical to the acquisition of a theater
ballistic missile defense capability; and for other research,
development, and demonstration activities that support the
mission of BMDO. The section would also require that any such
activities conform to the memorandum of understanding between
the Secretaries of Energy and Defense required by section 3131
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85) and be funded either through direct
contributions or through a waiver of a federal administrative
charge, overhead costs, or other indirect costs of the
Department of Energy or its contractors.
The budget request contained no funds for research related
to ballistic missile defense. The committee continues to
believe that the Department of Energy's national weapons
laboratories possess substantial technical expertise relevant
to the challenge of theater ballistic missile defenses and that
the laboratories can enhance the core competencies required to
sustain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.
The committee understands that a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) has been signed by the Secretaries of
Energy and Defense on cooperative research and development
activities between the DOE laboratories and the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and that funds for specific
projects based on this MOU have been requested by BMDO for
fiscal year 2000. The committee believes that an expansion of
this effort is justified.
Subtitle D--Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management
Sections 3151-3159--Commission to Examine Nuclear Weapons Policy
Management and Oversight
These sections would establish a ``Commission on Nuclear
Weapons Management,'' the procedures by which members of the
commission would be selected, general rules governing the
operation of the commission, the duties of the commission, the
commission's reporting requirements, and the commission's
powers.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 3161--Procedures for Meeting Tritium Production Requirements
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen necessary for
the proper functioning of U.S. nuclear weapons and due to a
short half life, must be periodically replenished. Despite the
fact that U.S. tritium production ceased in 1988, the committee
notes that a new source of tritium is required by 2005 to meet
tritium requirements imposed by nuclear warhead levels
consistent with Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I force levels.
In December 1998, the Secretary of Energy designated commercial
light water reactor technology to be the Department's primary
tritium production technology and designated accelerator
production of technology (APT) as the backup production
technology.
The committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) will have to issue amended licenses to the Tennessee
Valley Authority's Watts Bar and Sequoya light water reactors,
selected by the Secretary as the preferred facilities for
tritium production. The committee understands that the NRC
licensing process is often very lengthy and is concerned that
delays in issuing amended licenses to the preferred tritium
production facilities could jeopardize the ability of the
Department to meet tritium requirements. The Department's
tritium production implementation plan indicates that the
amended licenses will be granted by the first quarter of fiscal
year 2003, and senior Department of Energy officials have
informed the committee that they expect the amended licenses
will be issued at an earlier date. Because the committee
strongly believes that renewed production of tritium is
essential to U.S. security requirements, it directs the
Department to initiate the licensing process promptly.
To mitigate the risks inherent in a potentially lengthy
licensing process, this provision would require the Secretary
of Energy to prepare a plan to expedite APT design completion
and construction. If amended licenses for the operation of
commercial light water reactors for tritium production have not
been completed by December 31, 2002, the provision would also
require that the Secretary designate APT as the primary
technology for tritium production and implement the APT plan.
Section 3162--Extension of Authority of Department of Energy to Pay
Voluntary Separation Payments
This provision would extend the Department of Energy's
authority to pay voluntary separation incentive payments for
one year beyond its current authority and would require the
Department to submit a report on the Department's use of this
authority. The committee believes that this authority is a key
tool available to Defense Programs to shape its future
workforce as it downsizes.
The committee notes that several recent reports, including
``The Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons
Program,'' issued by the Institute for Defense Analyses in
February 1997, and the report of the Commission on Sustaining
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise, issued March 15, 1999, have
concluded that the Department of Energy Weapons Activities
program is overstaffed in its management and oversight
functions. In spite of these conclusions, Defense Programs
personnel levels have remained steady since fiscal year 1998
and are projected to remain steady through fiscal year 2000.
Section 3163--Fellowship Program for Development of Skills Critical to
the Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex
This provision would amend section 3140 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) by authorizing the establishment of a fellowship program
for graduate and postdoctoral students who are U.S. citizens
specializing in physical sciences with relevance to the nuclear
weapons complex; requiring recipients to accept a postdoctoral-
level appointment of at least one year, if offered, at one of
national weapons laboratories or plants of the nuclear weapons
complex; and requiring the Secretary of Energy to submit to the
congressional defense committees by January 1, 2000 a plan that
would establish criteria for the awarding of fellowships and a
description of service obligations to be incurred by fellowship
recipients. The provision would also authorize $5.0 million for
the fellowship program.
Section 3164--Department of Energy Records Declassification
This section would require that any future budget request
submitted to the Congress by the Department of Energy continue
to specifically identify as a budgetary line item funds that
would be used to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order
12958 or to comply with any subsequent statutory
declassification requirements. This section would also limit
the expenditure of funds by the Department of Energy for
declassification of records during fiscal year 2000 to no more
than $8.5 million.
Section 3165--Management of Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and
National Laboratories
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
assign to the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense
Programs direct authority over, and responsibility for, the
nuclear weapons production facilities and national laboratories
with respect to strategic management, policy development and
guidance, budget guidance and formulation, resource
requirements determinations and allocations, administration of
contracts, environmental safety and health operations,
integrated safety and management, safeguard and security
operations, and relations with government agencies. It would
also establish that the nuclear weapons production facilities,
national laboratories, and operations offices report directly
to the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. Finally, it
would allow the Assistant Secretary to delegate to the
operations offices a number of support functions, including
operational activities, program execution, personnel,
contracting and procurement, facility operations oversight, and
integration of production and research activities.
The committee notes that a 1997 study, entitled ``The
Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons Program (120
Study),'' found that Defense Programs suffers from confused
lines of authority and weak integration of programs, budgets,
and functions. The Commission on Sustaining United States
Nuclear Weapons Expertise, established by section 3162 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public
Law 104-201), recently completed its report and repeated those
conclusions. This provision would address these concerns by
clarifying the lines of authority for the national
laboratories, nuclear weapons production facilities, and
operations offices.
Section 3166--Notice to Congressional Committees of Compromise of
Classified Information within Nuclear Energy Defense Programs
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
notify the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the Armed
Services Committee of the House of Representatives whenever the
Secretary has any knowledge that classified information
relating to military applications of nuclear energy has been
disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power.
Since the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the
House of Representatives are the congressional committees
responsible for the authorization of the nuclear energy defense
programs of the Department of Energy, it is necessary that
these committees be kept informed of any compromise of
classified information to foreign powers either through
espionage or through willful or accidental release by U.S.
citizens. This information is essential so that these oversight
committees can determine if such a disclosure of classified
information caused significant damage to U.S. nuclear energy
defense programs, so that program redirection or remedial
actions can be authorized in a timely manner.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize $17.5 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board during fiscal year 2000.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3301--Definitions
This section would provide specific definitions of the
National Defense Stockpile and the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund.
Section 3302--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds
This section would authorize $78.7 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal
year 2000. The provision would also permit the use of
additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions
after a notification to the Congress.
Section 3303--Elimination of Congressionally Imposed Disposal
Restrictions on Specific Stockpile Materials
This section would repeal sections 3303 and 3304 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106) pertaining to restrictions on the disposal of
manganese ferro from the National Defense Stockpile.
TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Great Lakes Maritime Academy
The budget request contained $7.161 million for State
Maritime Schools, representing an increase of $411,000 over the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The committee
understands that the training simulator at the Great Lakes
Maritime Academy (GLMA) requires maintenance upgrades in order
to continue to support cadet training and certification. The
committee is concerned that the GLMA, the only State school
without a federally supported training vessel, may not be able
to continue to train its cadets to international maritime
standards without the use of this simulator. Therefore, the
committee directs that $190,000 of the $411,000 increase
requested for State maritime schools be used to upgrade and
repair the GLMA simulator.
Merchant Marine Academy
The budget request contained $34.1 million for the U.S.
Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The committee is concerned
about the deteriorating material condition of the physical
plant and campus infrastructure at the USMMA. The plant and
facilities are in such need of repair and replacement that they
have become a health and safety hazard to the midshipmen and
the staff. The budget request contained $150,000 for a
feasibility study for the design of a replacement utility
system. The committee directs the Secretary of Transportation
to provide by October 31, 1999, a report to the House Committee
on Armed Services summarizing the findings of this feasibility
study as well as a detailed outline of estimated costs
necessary to repair and restore the facilities at the USMMA. In
addition, the committee recommends $41.7 million, an increase
of $7.6 million, for deferred capital maintenance projects for
fiscal year 2000.
Repair and Maintenance of Maritime Administration Vessels
The committee understands that Ready Reserve Force vessels
managed by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) but operated
under the Military Sealift Command when activated for exercises
or crisis, must be maintained according to U.S. Coast Guard
standards. The committee expects that non-emergency repairs and
maintenance to these vessels will be made in U.S. shipyards,
except in cases of national emergency or unless the national
security readiness of the vessel may be adversely affected. In
addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Transportation
to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services
and the Senate Committee on Armed Services, by February 1,
2000, detailing the type, cost, and location of all non-
emergency maintenance or repairs to these vessels since 1990.
The report should also define ``emergency repairs'' and
indicate the official reason for any repairs or maintenance
performed in a shipyard outside of the Unites States or Guam.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Short Title
This Section would establish the Act as ``The Maritime
Administration Act for Fiscal Year 2000.''
Section 3402--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000
This section would authorize $213.4 million for fiscal year
2000. Of the funds authorized, $98.7 million is for the
Maritime Security Program and $79.8 million is for operations
and training programs, including $41.7, an increase of $7.6
million, for capital maintenance at the U.S. Merchant Marine
Academy. In addition, $31.0 million, an increase of $25.0
million, is for the costs, as defined in section 502 of the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of loan guarantees
authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) and $3.9 million is for
administrative expenses related to these loan guarantee
commitments.
Section 3403--Amendments to Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936
This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to place all Title XI bond proceeds in escrow to
protect the government's interest during vessel construction.
In addition, this section would prohibit the Secretary from
releasing funds from the escrow account until the Secretary
determines that the obligor has paid its portion of the actual
cost of construction or reconstruction and that the funds to be
released are needed to cover payments to the shipyard or other
approved vessel related costs.
This section would also authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to deposit funds into the Treasury which are
earned by an obligor and required to be paid into such an
account by the terms of the obligor's agreement with the
Secretary under a reserve fund or other collateral account
agreement. The Secretary shall have a security interest in such
deposits. In addition, this section would authorize the
Secretary to invest and reinvest the funds on deposit with the
Treasury in obligations of the United States with income from
the account to be paid to the obligor in the absence of a
default by the obligor. In the event of a default, the
Secretary could retain and offset all of the funds in the
account for the benefit of the United States. In no event could
funds be withdrawn for this without the consent of the
Secretary.
Section 3404--Extension of War Risk Insurance Authority
This section would extend through June 30, 2005, the
current authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation,
under Title XII of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, to provide
policies for vessel war risk insurance to vessel operators,
without premium, at the request of the Secretary of Defense
whenever it appears that such insurance cannot be obtained on
reasonable terms and conditions from commercial underwriters.
Section 3405--Ownership of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN
This section would amend the Federal Maritime Commission
Act of 1990 (46 U.S.C. Sec. 3302) to clarify the ownership
status of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN. The Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-324) authorized the conveyance of
title of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN to a nonprofit corporation for
use as a merchant marine memorial. Under this authority, the
National Liberty Ship Memorial, Inc. received title to the ship
on October 10, 1998. Nothing in this section would amend or
alter the terms and conditions set forth in either the Federal
Maritime Commission Act of 1990 or the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1996 as they relate to this vessel.
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Short Title
This section would establish the Act as the ``Panama Canal
Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.''
Section 3502--Authorization of Expenditures
This section would authorize the Panama Canal Commission
(the Commission) to make expenditures from the Panama Canal
Commission Revolving Fund within existing statutory limits for
the final period of U.S. operation of the Panama Canal, from
the beginning of fiscal year 2000 to noon on December 31, 1999.
The Commission does not draw from U.S. taxpayer funds for the
operation of the Canal, but receives funding to cover its
operating, administrative, and capital improvement expenses
from tolls and other revenues collected. The Commission's total
operating costs, including depreciation and interest payments,
in fiscal year 2000 are estimated to be $156.9 million. Due to
the numerous official activities that will precede and
accompany the transfer in this final period, the committee is
recommending the same amount that was authorized for fiscal
year 1999.
Section 3503--Purchase of Vehicles
This section would authorize the Commission to purchase
passenger motor vehicles built in the United States provided
that the purchase price is less than $26,000 per vehicle.
Section 3504--Office of Transition Administration
This section would authorize the Office of Transition
Administration (OTA), established by section 1305 of the Panama
Canal Act of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3714a) to expend or obligate funds
from the Panama Canal Commission Dissolution Fund established
by that same provision. This authority would be in effect from
enactment until the Fund terminates by law on October 24, 2004.
This section would also set forth certain operating parameters
of OTA. Specifically, it would deem the director of OTA as the
head of the agency for purposes of the exercise of procurement
authority, clarify that the relevant provisions of the Panama
Canal Act of 1979 will govern OTA's operation, and establish
Panama and Washington, D.C. as OTA's locations. Finally, this
section would confirm that the OTA office in Panama will be
subject to normal Chief of Mission authority exercised by the
United States Embassy in Panama.
DEPARTMENTAL DATA
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, March 23, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the
enclosed draft of legislation, ``To authorize appropriations
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other
purposes.''
This legislative proposal is part of the Department of
Defense Legislative Program for the First Session of the 106th
Congress and is necessary to carry out the President's budget
plans for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The Office of Management
and Budget advises that there is no objection to the
presentation of this proposal to the Congress, and that its
enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.
The bill proposes several important initiatives needed for
the efficient operation of the Department of Defense. It
contains two additional rounds of base closures that would
provide a fair process for eliminating unnecessary
infrastructure while saving billions of dollars needed for
increased modernization costs to replace aging weapon systems.
It also would authorize appropriations for construction at
certain military installations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001,
and for other military construction activities of the
Department.
The bill's 4.4 percent increase in basic pay, targeted pay
increases, restoration of retirement pay, and extensions and
increases in certain special pays and bonuses, would enable the
Department to recruit and retain qualified members in the
uniformed services. Finally, the bill would contribute to the
smooth management of the Department by providing many other
improvements and additions to the authorities under which we
operate.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
Enclosures.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 19, 1999 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 1401, as amended, by a vote of 55
to 1.
------
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education,
Washington, DC, May 20, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Spence: Thank you for working with me in your
development of H.R. 1401, National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, specifically:
1. Section 341, Assistance to Local Education
Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian
Employees;
2. Section 343; Technical Amendments to Defense
Dependents' Education Act of 1978;
3. Section 549, Re-codification and Consolidation of
Statutes Denying Federal Grants and Contracts by
certain Departments and Agencies to Institutions of
Higher Education that Prohibit Senior ROTC Units or
Military Recruiting on Campus;
4. Section 567, Access to Secondary School Students
for Military Recruiting Purposes; and
5. Section 673, Overseas Special Supplemental Food
Program.
As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction
of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
While I do not intend to seek sequential referral of H.R.
1401, the Committee does hold an interest in preserving its
future jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the
aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional prerogatives
should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments
thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We would
expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions should
a conference with the Senate arise.
Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the
amendments to H.R 1401 and look forward to working with you on
these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Government Reform has
decided not to assert its jurisdiction over the following
provisions in H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000, that fall within the legislative
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform.
Title V--Military Personnel Policy
Section 521: Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status)
Law.
Section 522: Civil Service Retirement of Technicians.
Section 523: Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians
Statute.
Section 524: Revision to Authorities Relating to National
Guard Technicians.
Title VI--Compensation and other Personnel Benefits
Section 672: Clarification of per diem eligibility for
military technicians serving on active duty without pay outside
the United States.
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related
Matters
Section 802: Extension of Authority to issue solicitations
for purposes of commercial items in excess of simplified
acquisition threshold.
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management
Section 902: Responsibility for logistics and sustainment
functions of the DOD.
Title XI--Department of Defense Civilian Personnel
Section 1101: Increase of pay cap for non-appropriated fund
senior executive employees.
Section 1102: Restoration of leave for certain DOD
employees who deploy to combat zone outside U.S.
Section 1103: Expansion of Guard & Reserve purposes for
which leave may be used.
Title XXVIII--General Provisions
Section 2802: Development of Ford Island, Hawaii.
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs
Section 3156: Personnel matters.
Section 3157: Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions.
Section 3162: Extension of authority of DOE to pay
voluntary separation incentive payments.
As you know, House Rule X, Establishment and Jurisdiction
of Standing Committees, grants the Government Reform Committee
wide jurisdiction over government management issues including
matters related to Federal civil service, procurement policy,
and property disposal.
This committee also oversees legislation regarding holidays
and celebrations. This waiver is not intended or designed to
limit our jurisdiction over any future consideration of related
matters.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consultation with the
Government Reform Committee to ensure that these provisions
address the legislative goals of both Committees as well as the
American taxpayer.
I look forward to working with you in the on this and other
issues throughout the 106th Congress.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 19,
1999, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably
reported H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000. The bill includes a number of provisions that
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of
Representatives.
The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction
are: (1) Section 1023, United States Military Activities in
Colombia; (2) Section 1201, Report on Strategic Stability under
START III; (3) Section 1202, One-Year Extension of Counter-
Proliferation Authorities for Support of United Nations Weapons
Inspection Regime in Iraq; and (4) Title XIII, Cooperative
Threat Reduction with States of the Former Soviet Union.
With respect to Section 1006, Limitation on Operations in
Yugoslavia, and Section 1206, Limitation on Funds for Bosnia
Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2000, it is my
understanding that the Parliamentarians have not made a final
determination regarding our jurisdictional claim on these
provisions. Because of our Committee's strong interest in these
provisions, which we believe are at the heart of our
Committee's jurisdiction regarding decisions governing
intervention abroad, we will continue to seek jurisdiction over
these provisions as we move toward conference committee on H.R.
1401.
Pursuant to Chairman Dreier's announcement that the
Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule
for H.R. 1401 and your desire to have the bill considered on
the House floor next week, the Committee on International
Relations will not seek a sequential referral of the bill as a
result of including these provisions, without waiving or ceding
now or in the future this committee's jurisdiction over the
provisions in question. I will seek to have conferees appointed
for these provisions during any House-Senate conference
committee.
I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of
the report on H.R. 1401 and as part of the record during
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed H.R. 1401, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, as reported by
the Committee on Armed Services for provisions within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. Based on my
reading, I believe the Committee on Resources has a
jurisdictional interest in sections 365, 601, 653, 654, 2814
and 2863, all dealing with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Corps, public lands or historic preservation.
Because I have no objection to these provisions and because
of the excellent working relationship our committees have
enjoyed these last three Congresses, I will not seek a
sequential referral of the bill based on their inclusion.
However, I do ask that you support my request to have the
Committee on Resources represented on any conference on this
measure or any similar measure for those provisions, and that
you include this letter in the report for the bill.
Thank you for keeping me and my staff apprized of the
progress of H.R. 1401; Robert Rangel, Philip Grone, Peter
Steffes and Michael Higgins of your Committee staff were
especially helpful. I look forward to seeing H.R. 1401 enacted
soon.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.
1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1401 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of
provisions of the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential
referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual
understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision
to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise
affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to
include any agreements worked out by staff of our two
Committees in amendments as the bill is taken to the House
Floor, and that a copy of this letter and of your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in
the Committee Report and as part of the record during
consideration of this bill by the House. In addition, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reserves the right
to be included as conferees on any matter within its
jurisdiction should this legislation go to a House-Senate
conference.
Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1 (q), of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure has
jurisdiction over oil and other pollution of navigable waters,
the non-military activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, as well as the Coast Guard. Our
environmental jurisdiction includes provisions which amend or
affect the Clean Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Coastal
Zone Management Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships,
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, (including the double hull
phase-out schedule), and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
In particular, our Committee has a jurisdictional interest
in Section 321, ``Remediation of asbestos and lead-based
paint'', which requires the Secretary of Defense to use the
Army Corps of Engineers to remediate asbestos and lead-based
paint at military installations. Nonmilitary activities of the
Corps are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and this additional program
will impact the Corps' ability to carry out its existing
missions. Similarly, our Committee has jurisdiction over the
Tennessee Valley Authority, and accordingly, the Committee has
a jurisdictional interest in Section 3161, ``Procedures for
Meeting Tritium Production Requirements.''
Furthermore, the Committee has an interest in the following
sections, as well as any other section in the reported version
of the bill, affecting Coast Guard pay or personnel matters:
361. Discretionary Authority to install
telecommunications equipment for persons performing
voluntary services.
367. Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in defense
household goods moving programs.
411. End Strengths for Selected Reserve.
511. Continuation on Reserve active status list to
complete disciplinary action.
515. Computation of years of service exclusion.
517. Expansion and codification of authority for
space-required travel for Reserves.
601. Fiscal year 2000 increase in military basic pay
and reform of basic pay rates.
602. Pay increase for fiscal years after fiscal year
2000.
611. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay
authorities for reserve forces.
613. Extension of authorities relating to payment of
other bonuses and special pays.
614. Aviation career incentive pay for air battle
managers.
615. Expansion of authority to provide special pay to
aviation career officers extending period of active
duty.
616. Diving duty special pay.
617. Reenlistment bonus.
618. Enlistment bonus.
619. Revised Eligibility requirements for reserve
component prior service enlistment bonus.
621. Increase in authorized monthly rate of foreign
lanuage proficiency pay.
622. Authorization of retention bonus for special
warfare officers extending period of active duty.
624. Authorization of career enlisted flyer incentive
pay.
625. Authorization of judge advocate continuation
pay.
631. Provision of lodging in kind for Reservists
performing training duty and not otherwise entitled to
travel and transportation allowances.
632. Payment of temporary lodging expenses for
members making their first permanent change of station.
633. Emergency leave travel cost limitations.
641. Redux retired pay system applicable only to
members electing new 15-year career status bonus.
642. Authorization of 15-year career status bonus.
651. Effective date of disability retirement for
members dying in civilian medical facilities.
653. Preservation of United States flag to retiring
members of the uniformed services not previously
covered.
654. Accrual funding for retirement system for
commissioned corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
671. Payments for unused accrued leave as part of
reenlistment.
672. Clarification of per diem eligibility for
military technicians serving on active duty without pay
outside the United States.
674. Special compensation for severely disabled
uniformed serviced retirees.
721. Pharmacy benefits program.
722. Improvements to third-party payer collection
program.
3404. Extension of war risk insurance authority.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on H.R. 1401 and other
matters of mutual interest to our two Committees.
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 21,
1999 regarding H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in
the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree
that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of
letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 3(d) Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2000 and the
four years. The results of such efforts are reflected in the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, which is included in this report pursuant to clause
3(c)(3).
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Earlier today, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1401, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Please
note, that for a variety of reasons, the estimates contained in
the transmittal are not directly comparable with the total for
the national defense function specified in the budget
resolution. For example, H.R. 1401 contains a few items that do
not fall under the national defense function. If appropriate
adjustments were made to place the cost estimate of H.R. 1401
on a comparable basis with the amounts contained in the budget
resolution, the budget authority for H.R. 1401 would be
$288,800 million (compared to $288,812 million in the budget
resolution), and the outlays would be $274,534 million
(compared to $276,567 million in the budget resolution).
I hope this clarifies the information provided in CBO's
cost estimate of H.R. 1401.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
------
May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1401, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Also
enclosed are two tables with comparisons among the budget
request, the bill, and the budget resolution.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Summary: H.R. 1401 would authorize appropriations totaling
$291.0 billion for fiscal year 2000 for the military functions
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy
(DOE). It also would prescribe personnel strengths for each
active duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed
forces. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized
amounts for 2000 would result in additional outlays of $287
billion over the 2000-2004 period. In addition, the bill
contains provisions that would raise the costs of discretionary
defense programs over the 2001-2004 period by about $2.6
billion.
The bill contains provisions that would affect direct
spending, primarily through changes to military retirement
programs. We estimate that the direct spending resulting from
provisions of H.R. 1401 would total about $7 million over the
2000-2004 period and $186 million over the 2000-2009 period.
Over the long run, the provisions to change the military
retirement system would raise the costs of that entitlement
program by about 6 percent. Under current law, spending for
that program will amount to about $32 billion in 1999. Because
it would affect direct spending, the bill would be subject to
pay-as-you-go procedures.
One section of the bill may contain an intergovernmental
and private-sector mandate, but the costs of the mandate would
not exceed thresholds established by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA). UMRA excludes from application of the act
legislative provisions that are necessary for the national
security or for the ratification or implementation of
international treaty obligations. CBO has determined that all
other provisions of this bill either fit within that exclusion
or do not contain private-sector or intergovernmental mandates
as defined by UMRA.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1401 is shown in Table 1, assuming
that the bill will be enacted by October 1, 1999.
Basis of Estimate:
Authorizations of Appropriations
The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling
$291.0 billion in 2000 for military programs of DOD and DOE
(see Table 2). These costs would fall within budget function
050 (national defense). The estimate assumes that the amounts
authorized will be appropriated for 2000. Outlays are estimated
based on historical spending patterns. In addition, H.R. 1401
would authorize appropriations of $80 million for the Maritime
Administration (function 400) and $68 million for the Armed
Forces Retirement Home (function 700).
TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 1401 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law for Defense
Programs:
Budget Authority \1\...................... 279,421 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................... 273,507 93,107 34,029 13,420 5,808 2,850
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level....................... 0 291,031 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................... 0 192,959 61,061 21,367 7,880 3,462
Spending Under H.R. 1401 for Defense Programs:
Authorization Level \1\................... 279,421 291,031 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................... 273,507 286,066 95,090 34,787 13,688 6,312
DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority.................... 0 1 2 0 2 2
Estimated Outlays............................. 0 1 2 0 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
Note.--Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050 (national defense), except for certain items
noted in the text.
TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000, AS ORDERED
REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Authorization Level............................. 72,116 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 69,520 1,587 505 144 0
Operation and Maintenance:
Authorization Level............................. 106,008 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 79,667 20,598 3,202 1,324 545
Procurement:
Authorization Level............................. 55,599 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 13,122 18,995 13,158 5,229 2,438
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
Authorization Level............................. 35,836 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 19,638 13,332 2,012 547 142
Military Construction and Family Housing:
Authorization Level............................. 8,590 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 2,488 3,173 1,716 653 324
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
Authorization Level............................. 12,285 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 7,903 3,336 835 11 10
Other Accounts:
Authorization Level............................. 523 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 274 93 59 32 23
General Transfer Authority:
Authorization Level............................. 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 280 -60 -120 -60 -20
Total:
Authorization Level............................. 290,957 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 192,892 61,054 21,367 7,880 3,462
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill also contains provisions that would affect various
costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the
fiscal year 2000 authorization and by authorizations in future
years. Table 3 contains estimates of these amounts. In addition
to the costs covered by the authorizations in the bill for
2000, these provisions would raise estimated costs by $2.6
billion over the 2001-2004 period. The following sections
describe the estimated authorizations shown in Table 3 and
provide information about CBO's cost estimates.
Multiyear Procurement Programs. In most cases, purchases of
weapon systems are authorized annually, and as a result DoD
negotiates a separate contract for each annual purchase. In a
small number of cases, the law permits multiyear procurement;
that is, it allows DoD to enter into a contract to buy
specified annual quantities of a system for up to five years.
In those cases DoD can negotiate lower prices because its
commitment to purchase the weapons gives the contractor an
incentive to find more economical ways to manufacture the
weapon, including cost-saving investments. Funding would
continue to be provided on an annual basis for these multiyear
contracts, but termination costs would be covered by an initial
appropriation.
H.R. 1401 would authorize DoD to enter into multiyear
contracts for six weapon systems: Javelin missiles, Bradley
fighting vehicles, Apache Longbow attack helicopters, upgrades
to the Abrams main battle tank, Wolverine heavy assault
bridges, and F/A-18 E/F aircraft. The Javelin missile and
Bradley fighting vehicle contracts would cover four years of
production while contracts for the F/A-18E/F, Apache Longbow
helicopters, Abrams tank upgrades, and Wolverine bridges would
cover five years.
CBO estimates savings from buying the five Army systems
with multiyear contracts would total $870 million, an average
of $174 million a year, over the 2000-2004 period. Funding
requirements through 2004 would total $7.2 billion instead of
the $8.0 billion needed under annual contracts. Multiyear
procurement of the Javelin would raise costs in 2000 because
that system did not receive advance procurement funding in 1999
in anticipation of multiyear procurement starting in 2000.
Similarly, CBO estimates that the Navy would save $706 million,
or about $140 million a year, through 2004 under a multiyear
contract for the F/A-18E/F, which under current law would cost
about $15.8 billion over that period. Those estimates are based
on the assumption that annual production will be at the levels
planned by the Administration for each of the six programs.
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 1401 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiyear Procurement:
Javelin Missile System............................... 33 -106 -73 -84 -9
Bradley Fighting Vehicle............................. -1 -31 -36 -33 0
Apache Longbow Helicopters........................... -2 -77 -97 -112 -96
Tank Upgrades........................................ 0 -29 -29 -30 -19
Wolverine Bridge..................................... 0 -7 -8 -9 -16
F/A-18 E/F Aircraft.................................. -148 -163 -166 -124 -106
Military Endstrengths:
Department of Defense................................ -511 -531 -551 -570 -589
Coast Guard Reserve.................................. 74 0 0 0 0
Grade Structure...................................... 1 1 1 1 1
Compensation and Benefits (DoD):
Military Pay Raise in 2000........................... 204 278 287 297 306
Pay Table Reform..................................... 195 809 838 864 893
Enlistment/Reenlistment Bonuses (active)............. 266 182 91 59 35
Aviation and Nuclear Special Pay..................... 40 43 33 25 20
Various Bonuses (Reserve)............................ 45 52 37 26 18
Special Pay for Nurses............................... 7 3 0 0 0
Increases in Special Pays............................ 34 55 50 45 43
New Special Pays..................................... 52 53 54 55 55
Travel and Transportation Allowances................. 21 21 22 22 22
Reserve Components................................... 5 5 6 6 6
Military Academies and Education Benefits............ 15 15 15 15 15
Other Military Benefits.............................. 22 22 22 22 22
Military Retirement:
Changes to REDUX System.............................. 443 596 1,136 1,137 1,187
Payments to Disabled Retirees........................ 45 45 45 45 46
Other Provisions:
Acquisition Workforce................................ -28 -492 -1,047 -1,146 -1,184
Agency Retirement Contributions...................... 2 3 3 4 4
DOE Separation Incentives............................ 0 0 6 0 0
Domiciliary and Custodial Care....................... 7 7 7 7 7
Bill Total:
Estimated Authorizations............................. 821 754 646 523 663
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--For every item in this table except one, the 2000 impacts are included in the amounts specifically
authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of
endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the amounts in Table 2.
Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve
endstrengths for 2000 and would lower the minimum endstrength
authorization under permanent law. The authorized endstrengths
for active-duty personnel and personnel in the Selected Reserve
would total 1,385,432 and 865,298, respectively. The bill would
specifically authorize appropriations of $72.1 billion for
military pay and allowances in 2000. Current law sets the
minimum endstrength for active-duty personnel at 1,395,698 but
the bill would lower that figure for future years to 1,384,806.
The reduction in authorized personnel would decrease future
costs by more than $500 million annually.
Also the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in
2000 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost
about $74 million and would fall under budget function 400,
transportation.
Grade Structure. Section 414 would change the grade
structure of active duty personnel in support of the reserves.
This change would not increase the overall endstrength, but
would result in more promotions. The provision would cost about
$1 million a year.
Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 1401 contains several
provisions that would affect military compensation and
benefits.
Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 4.8
percent at a total cost of about $2.0 billion in 2000. Because
this pay raise would be 0.5 percent above what is projected
under current law, CBO estimates that the incremental costs
would be $204 million in 2000 and average about $290 million
over the next four years.
In addition to the across-the-board pay raise, section 601
would authorize additional pay raises for individuals with
specific ranks and years of service. These raises would become
effective after July 1, 2000. They would cost $196 million in
2000 and about $900 million annually by 2004.
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would
extend for one year DoD's authority to pay certain bonuses and
allowances to current personnel. Under current law, these
authorities are scheduled to expire in December 1999, or three
months into fiscal year 2000. The bill would extend these
authorities through December 2000. CBO estimates that payment
of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for active duty
personnel would cost $266 million in 2000 and $182 million in
2001. The cost of extending special payments for aviators and
nuclear-qualified personnel would be $40 million in 2000 and
$43 million in 2001. Payment authorities for various bonuses
for the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost $45 million in
2000 and $52 million in 2001. We estimate that authorities to
make special payments to nurse officer candidates, registered
nurses, and nurse anesthetists would cost $7 million in 2000
and $3 million in 2001. Most of these changes would result in
additional, smaller costs in subsequent years because payments
are made in installments.
Increases in Special Pays and Bonuses. Sections 614 through
621 would revise certain eligibility criteria and pay rates for
personnel with special skills. Under those provisions, pay
would be increased for aviators, nuclear-qualified naval
officers, servicemembers performing diving duty, and
individuals with proficiency in foreign languages. In addition,
the maximum payments for enlistment and reenlistment bonuses
for personnel on active duty would increase and limits on
receiving only one hazardous duty incentive pay would be
removed. Those changes would cost $34 million in 2000 and
larger amounts in subsequent years.
New Special Pays. Sections 622 through 625 would authorize
four new special compensation categories. These include a
retention bonus for special warfare officers, continuation pay
for surface warfare officers, and incentive pay for career
enlisted flyers, which would replace a similar pay for certain
enlisted personnel. Continuation pay would also be extended to
personnel serving as judge advocates. Additional costs for
these provisions would total $52 million in 2000 and similar
amounts in subsequent years.
Travel and Transportation Allowances. Section 631 would
require DoD to cover the lodging expenses of reservists on
training duty when they are not otherwise entitled to travel
and transportation allowances and when government housing is
not available. Because the services have already been providing
lodging as needed, CBO attributes minimal additional costs to
this provision. Section 632 would allow enlisted personnel
reporting to their first permanent duty station to receive
temporary lodging expenses. Estimated costs for increased
lodging expenses would total about $21 million annually.
Reserve Components. Several provisions would affect
servicemembers in the reserves. Section 512 would authorize the
Secretary of Defense to order a member of the reserves to
active duty for the purpose of receiving authorized medical
care, receiving a disability evaluation, or participating in a
health care study. Costs would total about $1 million a year.
Section 518 would authorize a financial assistance program for
certain members of the Marine Corps Reserves at an estimated
cost of $4 million annually.
Military Academies and Education Benefits. Section 531
would increase DoD's authority to waive some of the
reimbursement that it receives for the expenses for foreign
students to attend the military academies. CBO estimates
additional waivers would total $3 million a year. Section 546
would increase the monthly subsistence allowance for senior
ROTC cadets selected for advanced training. The estimated costs
are $12 million annually.
Other Military Benefits. The bill contains several
additional provisions pertaining to pay and benefits.
Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program. The Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC), operated by the Food and Nutrition Service of the
Department of Agriculture, provides food assistance and
nutrition services to pregnant and post-partum women and
children up to five years of age who meet income and nutrition
eligibility guidelines. The bill would require DoD to operate a
similar program for personnel living overseas. CBO estimates
that about 5,100 women and children would participate in an
average month under the program, increasing discretionary costs
by $2 million each year.
The bill would require DoD to use the eligibility criteria
that apply to the WIC program, to the extent practicable, with
the specific exception that the value of in-kind housing
benefits be included in calculating a household's income. Based
on data from DoD on personnel living overseas, CBO assumes that
about 4,800 children under the age of five would meet the
requirements for age and household income. Assuming that 1,400
of the eligible children are up to one year old, program data
suggest that 1,900 pregnant, post-partum, and breast-feeding
women would be eligible based on income. Thus, a total of 6,700
women and children would meet the income criteria for
assistance. CBO estimates that about 80 percent of those 6,700
individuals would be determined to be at nutritional risk, and
assumes that 95 percent of those eligible would participate. We
therefore project a total of 5,100 participants in an average
month.
CBO estimates that the average monthly food cost would be
about $28 for each participant, based on a DoD estimate of the
cost of an average WIC food package in military commissaries,
adjusted for inflation. In addition to supplemental foods,
participants would receive nutrition services. Nutrition
services and other administrative costs are typically about 25
percent of the total cost in WIC. Based on the estimated food
costs, administrative costs would be about $7 per month per
participant.
Other Provisions. Section 566 would increase funding
limitations for the National Guard Challenge Program. Section
671 would allow payment of accrued leave to servicemembers upon
immediate reenlistment. Section 675 would allow the Secretaries
of the military departments to waive tuition charges for
servicemembers deployed in a contingency operation. CBO
estimates the cost of these increased authorities would total
about $20 million a year.
Military Retirement. H.R.1401 contains provisions that
would increase retirement benefits for various military
retirees.
Changes to the REDUX System. The bill would increase
retirement benefits for members who entered the service after
July 31, 1986, and are covered under the system known as REDUX.
Background. The Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986
(REDUX) governs the retirement of military personnel who
initially entered the armed forces after July 31, 1986. Under
REDUX a retiree's initial annuity ranges from 40 percent to 75
percent of the individual's highest three years of basic pay.
Retirees with 20 years of service will receive 40 percent, and
the fraction will grow with each additional year of service and
reach the maximum at 30 years of service. When the retiree is
62 years old, the annuity is raised in most cases to equal 2.5
percent of the average of the highest 36 months of basic pay
for each year of service up to a maximum of 75 percent. Also,
under REDUX, retirees receive annual cost-of-living adjustments
(COLAs) equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
less 1 percentage point. When the retiree reaches age 62, the
annuity is raised to reflect all of the CPI growth until that
point, but thereafter annual COLAs continue to equal the CPI
less one percentage point.
Current law provides two different formulas for other
individuals who become eligible for a nondisability retirement
benefit but are not covered by REDUX. Military personnel who
first became members of the armed forces before September 8,
1980, receive retired pay equal to a multiple of their highest
amount of basic pay; the multiple is 2.5 percent for every year
of service up to 75 percent. Retirees who first became members
of the armed forces between September 8, 1980, and July 31,
1986, receive retired pay based on the average of the highest
36 months of basic pay and the multiplier of 2.5 percent for
each year of service (the so-called high three plan). Annuities
for both of these groups are fully adjusted for changes in the
CPI.
Changes Under H.R. 1401. Under section 642, members who
under current law would retire under REDUX would face a choice
upon reaching 15 years of service. They could elect to receive
a lump-sum bonus of $30,000 and retire under the REDUX plan or
they could forgo that payment and upon retirement receive
annuities under the high three plan. Section 641 would
establish a floor for COLAs under both of those options--1
percent for those retiring under REDUX and 2 percent for those
selecting the other option.
Accrual Costs. Prior to 2009 the primary budgetary impact
would stem from the payments that DoD would make to the
military retirement trust fund. The military retirement system
is financed in part by payments from appropriated funds to the
military retirement trust fund based on an estimate of the
system's accruing liabilities. Repealing REDUX would increase
payments from the military personnel accounts to the military
retirement fund (a DoD outlay in budget function 050) to
finance the increased liability to the fund resulting from
additional years of service under a more generous system. CBO
estimates that the resulting increase in discretionary spending
from the accrual payments would be $443 million in 2000 and
would average about $600 million by 2004. The costs to DoD
would increase annually by projected increases in basic pay.
Accrual charges are reestimated by DoD every year depending
upon endstrengths, projected years of service at the time of
retirement, grade structures, and projected rates of military
pay raises, inflation, and interest rates. CBO's assumption
about these factors are consistent with the ones currently used
by the DoD's actuaries. These estimates assume that annual pay
raises are between 3 and 4 percent, the CPI grows at 3.5
percent a year over the long term, and the trust fund's
holdings of Treasury securities earn interest at a rate of 6.5
percent annually.
Lump-Sum Payments. In addition to the higher accrual
charges, CBO estimates that DoD would spend about $500 million
a year for lump-sum bonuses, assuming 50 percent of enlisted
personnel and about 40 percent of officers would elect to
receive the lower annuity in retirement. That estimate is based
on DoD's experience with two buyout programs in recent years
and the distribution of years of service among military
personnel. Those expecting to retire with long terms of service
and a relatively high REDUX annuity would tend to take the
bonus. Those who expect to retire with 20 years of service
would be more likely to take the other option. The members who
would be affected by this provision entered service in 1986;
thus, they would not be eligible for the lump-sum payment until
2001.
Direct Spending. These provisions would raise direct
spending for annuities by about $185 million over the 2000-2009
period, as discussed below with other provisions affecting
direct spending.
Payments to Disabled Retirees. Under current law, disabled
veterans who are retired from the military, the Coast Guard,
the Public Health Service (PHS), or the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cannot receive both full
retirement annuities and disability compensation. Such veterans
usually forgo a portion of their retirement annuity equal to
the nontaxable veterans' benefit. Section 674 would allow
retirees to receive additional payments if they receive
nondisability annuities, completed at least 20 years of
service, and have service-connected disabilities rated as 70
percent or greater within four years of their retirement.
The potential costs of section 674 depend on the number of
beneficiaries, their disability levels, and the benefit
amounts. CBO estimates that in 1999 about 20,000 retirees meet
the criteria under the bill, assuming that 80 percent of the
estimated 25,000 retirees who meet the other criteria had their
disability rated as at least 70 percent within four years of
retirement. Nearly all beneficiaries would be military
retirees, but about 300 retired members of the Coast Guard,
NOAA, and PHS would be eligible for payments.
CBO projects the potential caseload for future years using
expected mortality rates and expected rates of growth in the
population of new beneficiaries. On this basis, we expect that
the number of beneficiaries would change only slightly over the
next several years.
CBO estimated the distribution of those beneficiaries among
disability levels using data from a report prepared by the
General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1995. According to
information from the Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans
with disabilities rated 70 percent or greater generally receive
that rating soon after leaving military service. Veterans with
service-connected disabilities may have their ratings
reevaluated over time, but those veterans whose ratings are
increased usually have low-rated disabilities. Also, veterans
with psychiatric disabilities may have highly rated
disabilities, but most reevaluations of their disabilities lead
to reductions rather than increases.
The bill would define the additional benefit as follows:
$300 per month for a retiree whose disability is rated as
total, $200 per month for a retiree whose disability is rated
as 90 percent, and $100 per month for a retiree whose
disability is rated as 70 percent or 80 percent.
CBO estimates that the provision would cost about $45
million in 2000 and $226 million over the 2000-2004 period,
assuming that the bill would be enacted and implemented by
October 1, 1999. The benefits would be paid out of
discretionary appropriations for pay and benefits, and the bill
specifies how each Secretary would allocate funding that is
insufficient to pay all eligible beneficiaries.
Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce. The bill would
limit the size of the acquisition workforce and would require a
reduction of 50,000 military and civilian personnel during
fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Because the total number of
military personnel is determined by endstrength requirements,
CBO assumes that the provision would lead to their transfer to
other activities rather than separation from the services.
Separations of civilian personnel, who comprise about 80
percent of the acquisition workforce, would account for the
remaining reductions. CBO estimates that these changes in the
acquisition workforce would save $28 million in 2000, $492
million in 2001, and over $1.1 billion a year once the
reduction is fully accomplished. Savings would be relatively
small during the first few years because the cost of separation
payments offsets most of the initial savings in salaries.
Savings accumulate more rapidly once employees are off the
payroll for a full year and the government no longer pays
separation costs.
Agency Retirement Contributions. Section 522 of the bill
would change the early retirement provisions that apply to dual
status military technicians who are covered by the Federal
Employees' Retirement System (FERS) and lose their membership
in the Selected Reserve. Under current law, these technicians
can retire early if they are at least 50 years old and have at
least 25 years of service. The bill would allow technicians
hired after February 10, 1996, to retire early if they are at
least 50 years old and have 20 years of service, or at any age
if they have 25 years of service.
Under FERS, combined employee and agency retirement
contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund (CSRDF) are equal to the normal cost of providing
retirement benefits. The current normal cost for dual status
military technicians is 11.9 percent of basic pay. The
technicians contribute 0.8 percent of basic pay, and DoD pays
the rest. According to the Office of Personnel Management,
section 522 would increase the normal cost for affected
technicians to 12.6 percent of basic pay by allowing additional
technicians to take early retirement. Since employee
contributions would be unchanged, DoD's contribution for these
technicians would increase from 11.1 to 11.8 percent of basic
pay.
According to DoD, about 60,000 technicians are also members
of the Selected Reserve. Based on information from the National
Guard and the Reserves, CBO estimates that the number of
technicians that would be affected by this provision would rise
from about 10,000 in 2000 to 15,000 by 2004. CBO estimates that
the additional DoD retirement contributions for these
technicians would total $16 million over the 2000-2004 period.
DOE Separation Incentives. Under current law, the
Department of Energy (DOE) has the authority to offer buyouts
to employees who voluntarily retire or resign. Section 3162 of
the bill would extend this authority, which is scheduled to
expire at the end of calendar year 2000, through calendar year
2001. DOE would be required to make two payments for each
employee who accepts a buyout: a lump-sum payment to the
employee of up to $25,000 and a deposit into the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) equal to 26 percent of
the employee's final pay.
Because DOE plans to use this buyout authority between
October and December 2001, the payment of the separation
incentives would occur in fiscal year 2002. According to DOE,
approximately 150 employees are projected to accept a buyout.
Based on past buyout experience at DOE, CBO assumes that each
employee would receive a buyout payment of $25,000. CBO
estimates that total DOE payments for separation incentives,
including the deposits to the CSRDF, would total $6 million in
2002.
Military Health Care Programs and Benefits. Title VII
contains several provisions that would affect DoD health care
and benefits, although only a few would have a budgetary
impact.
Domiciliary and Custodial Care. Section 703 would authorize
DoD to continue to waive the custodial care exclusion under
TRICARE for certain individuals. The beneficiaries would be
those who were receiving coverage for ongoing custodial care
when the benefit was reduced significantly under a new program.
According to DoD, this provision would not affect more than 25
people. CBO estimates that the average annual cost of the
provision would be about $300,000 per person and that section
703 would cost about $7 million a year.
Other Health Care Provisions. The bill contains two other
health care provisions that could have budgetary impacts that
CBO cannot estimate. Section 721 would require the Secretary of
Defense to establish a uniform formulary of pharmaceutical
agents by October 1, 2000. Although savings from economies of
scale in purchasing drugs and other efficiencies are possible,
CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of a uniform formulary
because it has no information about how the new formulary would
compare with the system DoD operates under current law.
Section 722 would alter the criteria used by DoD to
calculate charges to third-party insurers. Although CBO cannot
estimate the precise budgetary impact of this provision, it
expects the impact would be relatively small because of
offsetting effects of the provision. This change could raise
some of DoD's charges and consequent receipts, but it could
also increase the likelihood that third-party insurers would
deny claims from DoD.
Long-Term Charter of Naval Vessels. Section 1014 would
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into long-term
commitments to lease newly built surface vessels. The contract
may include an option for the Navy to purchase the vessel.
Contracts under this section would have to be specifically
authorized in subsequent legislation. Under current practices,
a contract authorized under this section would probably be
considered either a capital lease or a lease-purchase
arrangement. As a result, the subsequent authorization would be
scored with a large amount of budget authority in the first
year. If the arrangement is a lease purchase, the budget would
record all outlays over the expected construction period.
Direct spending
The bill contains provisions that would affect direct
spending primarily through changes to military retirement
programs. We estimate that the direct spending from provisions
of H.R. 1401 would total about $186 million over the 2000-2009
period.
Military Retirement. Sections 641 and 642 (see the
discussion above) would increase direct spending from the
military retirement trust fund by $1 million in 2000 and by
about $185 million over the 2000-2009 period. The outlay impact
before 2006 is primarily due to higher cost-of-living
allowances for individuals who receive a disability annuity.
Starting in 2006 the impact is almost all due to regular
retirements. In the long run, direct spending for military
retirement would be about 6 percent higher than under current
law for a program that costs about $32 billion in 1999.
Property Transactions. The bill contains various provisions
that would authorize property transactions involving both large
and small parcels of real estate.
Ford Island. The bill would provide the Navy with a variety
of means to develop Ford Island, which is located in Pearl
Harbor. Under section 2802, the Navy could sell and lease its
excess Hawaiian property in exchange for cash and services. But
because the use of cash proceeds would require appropriation
action, the Navy would probably enter into barter arrangements
and enhanced-use leases that would allow it to obtain
construction and maintenance services that could have a cash
value up to about $500 million.
Direct spending would increase to the extent that the Navy
would sell its excess property under current law. In that case,
the bill would result in forgone receipts to the Treasury. If
the land was formally declared excess and sold through normal
procedures that govern property disposal, the receipts could
total tens of millions of dollars or more. But because the Navy
has no incentive under current law to formally declare that its
valuable real estate is excess to its needs, CBO believes that
the property is unlikely to be sold under current law.
Forgone Receipts from Other Provisions. Section 2832 would
convey an Army Reserve Center to the City of Kankakee,
Illinois. The Army has declared that property excess to its
needs. Thus, under current law, it would likely be transferred
to the General Services Administration and sold. Based on
information from the Army, CBO estimates that forgone receipts
would total about $1 million in 2001.
Sections 2851 and 2863 would convey land that is being
leased to nongovernmental entities. Under current law, receipts
from these lease payments are deposited in the Treasury. The
loss of receipts from enactment of these provisions would total
less than $500,000 annually.
Other Land Transactions. Title XXVIII contains a variety of
other provisions that would authorize DoD to convey land at no
cost to the recipient. These conveyances would affect both
small and large properties, ranging from six acres of docks and
facilities in Whittier, Alaska, to 314 acres of land that
contain a naval weapons industrial plant near Dallas, Texas.
Some of the property that would be conveyed in title XXVIII
has been declared excess by DoD. Under current law, this
property is likely to be given to state or local governments.
Therefore, CBO estimates these conveyances would not affect
receipts. Other parcels--some worth up to several million
dollars each--have not been declared excess. Because it is
unclear if or when these parcels would be declared excess and
sold under current law, CBO has no basis for estimating whether
these conveyances would affect receipts.
Still other parcels that would be conveyed by the bill are
excess land from prior rounds of Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC). Under current law, DoD can use proceeds from the sale
of BRAC properties to offset base closure costs. Thus, the
conveyance of these properties would have no net effect on
spending. The conveyances would, however, increase the need for
future appropriations.
DOE Separation Incentives. As noted previously, section
3162 would extend DOE's authority to offer buyout payments to
employees who voluntarily retire or resign. These payments
would induce some employees to retire--and begin receiving
federal retirement benefits--earlier than they would otherwise.
These additional payments would represent direct spending. In
later years, annual federal retirement outlays would be lower
than under current law because the employees who retire earlier
would receive a smaller annuity.
Based on information from DOE, CBO assumed that buyouts
under this extended authority would be offered at the beginning
of fiscal year 2002, and that 150 employees would accept them.
CBO assumes that these buyouts would induce about 40 percent of
these employees to retire a year or two earlier. We estimate
that the resulting increase in federal retirement benefits
would be $2 million in 2002 and $1 million in 2003. In
addition, DOE would make $3 million in payments in 2002 to the
CSRDF for the employees who accept buyouts. These additional
payments would be treated as offsetting receipts, resulting in
a net decrease in direct spending of $1 million in 2002.
Waiver of Certain TRICARE Deductibles. Section 712 would
allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the TRICARE deductibles
for family members of certain reservists and National Guardsmen
who are recalled to active duty. Based on the current authority
of the Secretary of Defense to call about 33,000 members of the
Selected Reserve to active duty to support operations in
Kosovo, CBO believes this provision could affect approximately
10,000 families. This estimate assumes that 45 percent of the
reservists have other insurance and would not use TRICARE and
that 50 percent of the remainder would have dependents who
would benefit from this provision, based on data from the 1996
Survey of Retired Military Personnel and the Defense Manpower
Data Center, respectively. The current annual deductible for
these families is $300. CBO estimates that this provision would
reduce collections in fiscal year 2000 by about $3 million. DoD
has the authority to spend much of those collections; thus,
lower spending would offset most of the forgone collections.
However, DoD's needs for discretionary funding may rise by a
like amount. Although it is impossible to predict the extent,
frequency, and duration of reserve call-ups, CBO expects the
budgetary effects of this provision would be insignificant in
most years.
Per Diem for Certain Military Technicians. Section 672
would authorize the Department of Defense to pay a per diem
allowance to military technicians serving on active duty
without pay outside the United States. The per diem allowance
would substitute for the provision of subsistence and housing.
Because the provision would be effective as of February 10,
1996, payment of any retroactive allowances would constitute
direct spending. CBO cannot estimate the cost of this provision
because no accounting of eligible personnel is currently
available.
Stockpile Sales. Section 3303 would eliminate two mandated
restrictions on the disposal of certain manganese and chromium
materials. These restrictions were included in the National
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106). The first restriction would require the manager of the
National Defense Stockpile to give a right of first refusal on
all such sales to domestic suppliers of those materials. CBO
estimates that the repeal of this restriction would have little
or no budgetary impact because, even under current law,
domestic suppliers were required to pay market prices for the
materials. The second restriction would delay the sale of high-
carbon manganese ferro alloy until all lower carbon grades are
disposed. CBO estimates that the repeal of this restriction
would have no budgetary impact because there are no lower
carbon grades of manganese ferro alloy remaining in the
stockpile inventory.
Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an
insignificant budgetary impact:
Section 801 would allow DoD to sell holdings of coke
and coal and to spend the proceeds of those sales.
Section 522 of the bill would impose mandatory
retirement rules for certain military technicians in
the Reserves and would allow other technicians to
retire early; CBO estimates that this provision would
have no impact on the federal budget during the 2000-
2009 period.
Section 652 would extend eligibility for limited
survivor annuities to surviving spouses of reserve
members who died before September 21, 1977, and had met
all the requirements for retirement except reaching
their 60th birthday.
Section 655 would allow members with over eight years
active duty or 15 years reserve service to receive a
disability retirement or separation if they are
separated from the service due to a pre-existing
condition. Costs would be insignificant in the short
run and would amount to approximately $10 million a
year after 23 years, as certain reservists reach 60
years of age.
Pay-as-you-go considerations
Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for
legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net
changes in direct spending that would result from H.R. 1401 are
shown in the following table. For the purposes of enforcing
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the current year,
the budget year, and the succeeding four years are counted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays.............................................. 0 1 2 0 2 2 2 3 17 54 103
Changes in receipts............................................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact
Section 722 of the bill would allow the Department of
Defense to bill third-party insurers at ``reasonable charges''
for care provided at a facility of the uniformed services,
rather than what current law refers to as ``reasonable costs.''
That provision may impose a private-sector and
intergovernmental mandate on insurers and health care plans
because they would be required to pay charges for health care
above those that are currently charged by the government. The
costs of the provision would exceed neither the private-sector
threshold ($100 million in 1996, adjusted annually for
inflation) nor the intergovernmental threshold ($50 million in
1996, adjusted annually for inflation) specified in UMRA.
UMRA excludes from application of the act legislative
provisions that are necessary for the national security or the
ratification or implementation of international treaty
obligations. CBO has determined that all other provisions of
this bill either fit within that exclusion or do not contain
private-sector or intergovernmental mandates as defined by
UMRA.
Estimate Prepared By.--Federal Cost: (Supplemental Food
Program) Valerie Baxter, (Military Construction and Other
Defense) Kent Christensen, (Military and Civilian Personnel)
Jeannette Deshong, (Stockpile Sales and Atomic Energy Defense
Activities) Raymond Hall, (Military Retirement) Sarah Jennings,
(Civilian Retirement and Separation) Eric Rollins, (Health
Programs) Dawn Sauter, (Multiyear Procurement) Jo Ann Vines,
(Maritime Administration) Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local,
and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex. Impact on the Private Sector:
R. William Thomas.
Estimate Approved By.--Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
the estimates as contained in the report of the Congressional
Budget Office.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the committee has not received a
report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 1401.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3 (d)(1) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
intergovernmental mandates.
RECORD VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken
with respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 1401. The
record of these votes is attached to this report.
The committee ordered H.R. 1401 reported to the House with
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 55-1, a quorum being
present.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 141. PILOT PROGRAM ON SALES OF MANUFACTURED ARTICLES AND SERVICES
OF CERTAIN ARMY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES WITHOUT
REGARD TO AVAILABILITY FROM DOMESTIC SOURCES.
(a) Pilot Program Required.--During [fiscal years 1998 and
1999] fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the Secretary of the Army
shall carry out a pilot program to test the efficacy and
appropriateness of selling manufactured articles and services
of Army industrial facilities under section 4543 of title 10,
United States Code, without regard to the availability of the
articles and services from United States commercial sources. In
carrying out the pilot program, the Secretary may use articles
manufactured at, and services provided by, not more than three
Army industrial facilities.
(b) Temporary Waiver of Requirement for Determination of
Unavailability From Domestic Source.--Under the pilot program,
the Secretary of the Army is not required under section
4543(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to determine
whether an article or service is available from a commercial
source located in the United States in the case of any of the
following sales for which a solicitation of offers is issued
during [fiscal year 1998 or 1999] the period during which the
pilot program is being conducted:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Update of Report.--Not later March 1, 2001, the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense shall submit to Congress
an update of the report required to be submitted under
subsection (c) and an assessment of the success of the pilot
program.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Military Education and Training
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING OF ARMY DRILL SERGEANTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 557. TRAINING IN HUMAN RELATIONS MATTERS FOR ARMY DRILL SERGEANT
TRAINEES.
(a) * * *
(b) Effective Date.--Section 4318 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to
drill sergeant trainee classes that begin after the end of the
90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues
* * * * * * *
SEC. 563. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.
(a) * * *
(b) Authority of Individuals To Act for Commission.--Any
member or agent of the commission may, if authorized by the
commission, take any action which the commission is authorized
to take under this [title] subtitle.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 644. ANNUITIES FOR CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVING SPOUSES.
(a) Survivor Annuity.--(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay
an annuity to the qualified surviving spouse of each member of
the uniformed services who--
* * * * * * *
(A) died before March 21, 1974, and was entitled to
retired or retainer pay on the date of death; or
(B) was a member of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces [during the period beginning on September 21,
1972, and ending on] before October 1, 1978, and at the
time of his death would have been entitled to retired
pay under chapter 67 of title 10, United States Code
(as in effect before December 1, 1994), but for the
fact that he was under 60 years of age.
* * * * * * *
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) * * *
(2) The term ``surviving spouse'' has the meaning
given the terms ``widow'' and ``widower'' in paragraphs
[(3) and (4)] (7) and (8) of section 1447 of title 10,
United States Code.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Department of Defense Schools and Centers
* * * * * * *
SEC. 934. POW/MIA INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS.
(a) * * *
(b) Use of Intelligence in Analysis of POW/MIA Cases in
Department of Defense.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure
that the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office of
the Department of Defense takes into full account all
intelligence regarding matters concerning [of] prisoners of war
and missing persons (as defined in chapter 76 of title 10,
United States Code) in analyzing cases involving such persons.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1033. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR COUNTER-DRUG
ACTIVITIES OF PERU AND COLOMBIA.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Condition on Provision of Support.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Not later than January 1 of each year, the Secretary
shall submit to the congressional committees a report detailing
the number of United States military personnel deployed or
otherwise assigned to duty in Colombia at any time during the
preceding year, the length and purpose of the deployment or
assignment, and the costs and force protection risks associated
with such deployments and assignments.
[(4)] (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term
``congressional committees'' means the following:
(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(B) The Committee on National Security and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIII--ARMS CONTROL AND RELATED MATTERS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1302. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF STRATEGIC
NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.
[(a) Funding Limitation.--Funds available to the Department
of Defense may not be obligated or expended during fiscal year
1998 for retiring or dismantling, or for preparing to retire or
dismantle, any of the following strategic nuclear delivery
systems below the specified levels:
[(1) 71 B-52H bomber aircraft.
[(2) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.
[(3) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
[(4) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
[(b) Waiver Authority.--If the START II Treaty enters into
force during fiscal year 1998, the Secretary of Defense may
waive the application of the limitation under subsection (a) to
the extent that the Secretary determines necessary in order to
implement the treaty.]
(a) Funding Limitation.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), funds available to the Department of Defense may not be
obligated or expended for retiring or dismantling, or for
preparing to retire or dismantle, any of the following
strategic nuclear delivery systems below the specified levels:
(A) 76 B-52H bomber aircraft.
(B) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.
(C) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
(D) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) shall cease to apply upon
a certification by the President to Congress of the following:
(A) That the effectiveness of the United States
strategic deterrent will not be decreased by reductions
in strategic nuclear delivery systems.
(B) That the requirements of the Single Integrated
Operational Plan can be met with a reduced number of
strategic nuclear delivery systems.
(C) That reducing the number of strategic nuclear
delivery systems will not, in the judgment of the
President, provide a disincentive for Russia to ratify
the START II treaty or serve to undermine future arms
control negotiations.
(3) If the President submits the certification described in
paragraph (2), then effective upon the submission of that
certification, funds available to the Department of Defense may
not be obligated or expended to maintain a United States force
structure of strategic nuclear delivery systems with a total
capacity in warheads that is less than 98 percent of the 6,000
warhead limitation applicable to the United States and in
effect under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
(b) Waiver Authority.--If the START II treaty enters into
force, the President may waive the application of the
limitation in effect under paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection
(a), as the case may be, to the extent that the President
determines such a waiver to be necessary in order to implement
the treaty.
(c) Funding Limitation on Early Deactivation.--(1) * * *
(2) For purposes of this subsection and subsection (d), a
substantial early deactivation is an action [during the
strategic delivery systems retirement limitation period] during
the fiscal year during which the START II Treaty enters into
force to deactivate a substantial number of strategic nuclear
delivery systems specified [in subsection (a)] by--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Contingency Plan for Sustainment of Systems.--(1) Not
later then February 15, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a plan for the sustainment beyond October 1,
1999, of United States strategic nuclear delivery systems and
alternative Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty force structures in
the event that a strategic arms reduction agreement subsequent
to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty does not enter into
force before 2004.
[(2) The plan shall include a discussion of the following
matters:
[(A) The actions that are necessary to sustain the
United States strategic nuclear delivery systems,
distinguishing between the actions that are planned for
and funded in the future-years defense program and the
actions that are not planned for and funded in the
future-years defense program.
[(B) The funding necessary to implement the plan,
indicating the extent to which the necessary funding is
provided for in the future-years defense program and
the extent to which the necessary funding is not
provided for in the future-years defense program.]
(e) Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems Defined.--For purposes
of this section, the term ``strategic nuclear delivery
systems'' means the following:
(1) B-52H bomber aircraft.
(2) Trident ballistic missile submarines.
(3) Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
(4) Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.
* * * * * * *
[(g) Strategic Delivery Systems Retirement Limitation
Period.--For purposes of this section, the term ``strategic
delivery systems retirement limitation period'' means the
period of fiscal years 1998 and 1999.]
* * * * * * *
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1986
TITLE XIV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1405. TWO-YEAR BUDGET CYCLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
[(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that the programs and
activities of the Department of Defense could be more
effectively and efficiently planned and managed if funds for
the Department were provided on a two-year cycle rather than
annually.
[(b) Requirement for Two-Year Budget Proposal.--The President
shall include in the budget submitted to the Congress pursuant
to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal
year 1998 a single proposed budget for the Department of
Defense and related agencies for fiscal years 1988 and 1989.
Thereafter, the President shall submit a proposed two-year
budget for the Department of Defense and related agencies every
other year.
[(c) Reports.--Not later than April 1, 1986, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services and on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a
report containing the Secretary's views on the following:
[(1) The advantages and disadvantages of operating
the Department of Defense and related agencies on a
two-year budget cycle.
[(2) The Secretary's plans for converting to a two-
year
budget cycle.
[(3) A description of any impediments (statutory or
otherwise) to converting the operations of the
Department of Defense and related agencies to a two-
year budget cycle beginning with fiscal year 1988.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1412. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL CHEMICAL AGENTS
AND MUNITIONS
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Environmental Protection and Use of Facilities.--(1) * *
*
[(2) Facilities constructed to carry out this section may not
be used for any purpose other than the destruction of lethal
chemical weapons and munitions, and when no longer needed to
carry out this section, such facilities shall be cleaned,
dismantled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations.]
(2) Facilities constructed to carry out this section shall,
when no longer needed for the purposes for which they were
constructed, be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations and mutual agreements between the Secretary of
the Army and the Governor of the State in which the facility is
located.
(3)(A) Facilities constructed to carry out this section may
not be used for a purpose other than the destruction of the
stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions that exists
on November 8, 1985.
(B) The prohibition in subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to items designated by the Secretary of Defense as
lethal chemical agents, munitions, or related materials after
November 8, 1985, if the State in which a destruction facility
is located issues the appropriate permit or permits for the
destruction of such items at the facility.
[(3)] (4) In order to carry out subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(1), the Secretary may make grants to State and local
governments (either directly or through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency) to assist those governments in carrying out
functions relating to emergency preparedness and response in
connection with the disposal of the lethal chemical agents and
munitions referred to in subsection (a). Funds available to the
Department of Defense for the purpose of carrying out this
section may be used for such grants. Additionally, the
Secretary may provide funds through cooperative agreements with
State and local governments for the purpose of assisting them
in processing, approving, and overseeing permits and licenses
necessary for the construction and operation of facilities to
carry out this section. The Secretary shall ensure that funds
provided through such a cooperative agreement are used only for
the purpose set forth in the preceding sentence.
[(4)] (5)(A) In coordination with the Secretary of the Army
and in accordance with agreements between the Secretary of the
Army and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the Director shall carry out a program to provide
assistance to State and local governments in developing
capabilities to respond to emergencies involving risks to the
public health or safety within their jurisdictions that are
identified by the Secretary as being risks resulting from--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Identification of Funds.--(1) * * *
(2) Amounts appropriated to the Secretary for the purpose of
carrying out subsection [(c)(4)] (c)(5) shall be promptly made
available to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
(g) Periodic Reports.--(1) * * *
(2) Each annual report shall include the following:
(A) * * *
(B) A site-by-site description of actions taken to
assist State and local governments (either directly or
through the Federal Emergency Management Agency) in
carrying out functions relating to emergency
preparedness and response in accordance with subsection
[(c)(3)] (c)(4).
* * * * * * *
----------
STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 142. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DESTRUCTION OF ASSEMBLED
CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
[(a) Program Management.--The program manager for the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment shall continue to manage
the development and testing (including demonstration and pilot-
scale testing) of technologies for the destruction of lethal
chemical munitions that are potential or demonstrated
alternatives to the baseline incineration program. In
performing such management, the program manager shall act
independently of the program manager for Chemical
Demilitarization and shall report to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology.]
(a) Program Management.--(1) The program manager for the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program shall manage the
development and testing of technologies for the destruction of
lethal chemical munitions that are potential or demonstrated
alternatives to the baseline incineration program.
(2) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology and the Secretary of the Army shall jointly submit
to Congress, not later than December 1, 1999, a plan for the
transfer of oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment program from the Under Secretary to the Secretary.
(3) Oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment
program shall be transferred from the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology to the Secretary of the
Army pursuant to the plan submitted under paragraph (2) not
later than 90 days after the date of the submission of the
notice required under section 152(f)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 50
U.S.C. 1521).
(4) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology and the Secretary of the Army shall ensure
coordination of the activities and plans of the program manager
for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program and the
program manager for Chemical Demilitarization during the
demonstration and pilot plant facility phase for an alternative
technology.
(5) For those baseline demilitarization facilities for which
the Secretary decides that implementation of an alternative
technology may be recommended, the Secretary may take those
measures necessary to facilitate the integration of the
alternative technology.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Active Forces
SEC. 402. REVISION IN PERMANENT END STRENGTH LEVELS.
(a) * * *
(b) Revision to Flexibility Authority for the Army.--
Subsection (e) of such section is amended by striking out ``1
percent or, in the case of the Army, by not more than 1.5
percent[,].'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``0.5 percent.''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters
SEC. 511. USE OF RESERVES FOR EMERGENCIES INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION.
(a) * * *
(b) Use of Active Guard and Reserve Personnel.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense may not submit to Congress
earlier than 90 days after the date of the receipt by Congress
of the report required by section [1411] 1402 of this Act a
request for the enactment of legislation to modify the
requirements of paragraph (3), or to increase the number of
personnel authorized by paragraph (4), of section 12310(c) of
title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 513. REDUCED TIME-IN-GRADE REQUIREMENT FOR RESERVE GENERAL AND
FLAG OFFICERS INVOLUNTARILY TRANSFERRED FROM ACTIVE
STATUS.
(a) Minimum Service in Active Status.--Section 1370(d)(3) of
title 10, United States Code, as amended by section [511]
512(a), is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Military Education and Training
* * * * * * *
SEC. 525. IMPROVED OVERSIGHT OF INNOVATIVE READINESS TRAINING.
(a) * * *
(b) Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense may not
initiate any project under section 2012 of title 10, United
States Code, after October 1, 1998, until the program required
by subsection [(i)] (j) of that section (as added by subsection
(a)) has been established.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle G--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 568. STATUS IN THE NAVAL RESERVE OF CADETS AT THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACADEMY.
Section 1303(c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C.
App. [1295(c)] 1295b(c)), is amended--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Health Care Services for Medicare-Eligible Department of
Defense Beneficiaries
* * * * * * *
SEC. 722. TRICARE AS SUPPLEMENT TO MEDICARE DEMONSTRATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Eligible Individuals.--(1) An individual is eligible to
participate under this section if the individual is a member or
former member of the uniformed services described in section
1074(b) of title 10, United States Code, a dependent of the
member described in section 1076(a)(2)(B) or 1076(b) of that
title, or a dependent of a member of the uniformed services who
died while on active duty for a period of more than 30 days,
who--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) resides in an area selected by the Secretary
under subsection [(c)] (d).
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 742. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A LEVEL 1 TRAUMA TRAINING CENTER.
[The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to establish
a Level 1 Trauma Training Center (as designated by the American
College of Surgeons) in order to provide the Army with a trauma
center capable of training forward surgical teams.]
SEC. 742. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A TRAUMA TRAINING CENTER.
The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to establish a
Trauma Training Center in order to provide the Army with a
trauma center capable of training forward surgical teams.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1053 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1997
SEC. 1053. DISPOSAL OF TRACT OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) Disposal Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding title II the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 481 et seq.), title VIII of such Act (40 U.S.C. 531 et
seq.), section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), or any other provision of law
relating to the management and disposal of real property by the
United States, the Armed Forces Retirement Home Board shall
[convey by sale] convey, by sale or lease, all right, title,
and interest of the United States in a parcel of real property,
including improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 49
acres located in Washington, District of Columbia, east of
North Capitol Street, and recorded as District Parcel 121/19.
[(2) The sale under paragraph (1) may not occur before April
30, 1999.]
(2) The Armed Forces Retirement Home Board shall sell or
lease the property described in subsection (a) within 12 months
after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
(b) Manner, Terms and Conditions of Disposal.--[(1) The sale
under subsection (a) shall be made to a neighboring nonprofit
organization from whose extensive educational and charitable
services the public benefits and has benefited from for more
than 100 years, or an entity or entities related to such
organization, and whose substantial investment in the
neighborhood is consistent with the continued existence and
purpose of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.] (1) The Armed
Forces Retirement Home Board shall determine the manner, terms,
and conditions for the sale or lease of the real property under
subsection (a), except as follows:
(A) Any lease of the real property under subsection
(a) shall include an option to purchase.
(B) The conveyance may not involve any form of
public/private partnership, but shall be limited to
fee-simple sale or long-term lease.
(C) Before conveying the property by sale or lease to
any other person or entity, the Board shall provide the
Catholic University of America with the opportunity to
match or exceed the highest bona fide offer otherwise
received for the purchase or lease of the property, as
the case may be, and to acquire the property.
(2) As consideration for the real property conveyance under
subsection (a), the purchaser selected under paragraph (1)
shall pay to the United States an amount equal to the fair
market value of the real property at its highest and best
economic use, as determined by the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Board, based on an independent appraisal. In no event shall the
sale or lease of the property be for less than the appraised
value of the property in its existing condition and on the
basis of its highest and best use.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
Subtitle A--General Military Law
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 115. Personnel strengths: requirement for annual authorization
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such
action is in the national interest, the Secretary may--
(1) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for any of the
armed forces by a number equal to not more than 1
percent of that end strength; [and]
(2) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(B) for a fiscal year for any of the
armed forces by a number equal to not more than 2
percent of that end strength[.]; and
(3) vary the end strength authorized pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) for a fiscal year for the Selected
Reserve of any of the reserve components by a number
equal to not more than 2 percent of that end strength.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
Sec.
121. Regulations.
* * * * * * *
130b. Authority of armed forces medical examiner to conduct forensic
pathology investigations.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 130b. Authority of armed forces medical examiner to conduct
forensic pathology investigations
(a) In General.--The Armed Forces Medical Examiner may
conduct a forensic pathology investigation, including an
autopsy, to determine the cause or manner of death of an
individual in any case in which--
(1) the individual was killed, or from any cause died
an unnatural death;
(2) the cause or manner of death is unknown;
(3) there is reasonable suspicion that the death was
by unlawful means;
(4) the death appears to be from an infectious
disease or the result of the effects of a hazardous
material that may have an adverse effect on the
installation or community in which the individual died
or was found dead; or
(5) the identity of the deceased individual is
unknown.
(b) Limitations on Authority.--(1) The authority provided
under subsection (a) may only be exercised with respect to an
individual in a case in which--
(A) the individual died or is found dead at an
installation garrisoned by units of the armed forces
and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States;
(B) the individual was, at the time of death, a
member of the armed forces on active duty or inactive
duty for training or a member of the armed forces who
recently retired under chapter 61 of this title and
died as a result of an injury or illness incurred while
on active duty;
(C) the individual was a civilian dependent of a
member of the armed forces and died or was found dead
at a location outside the United States;
(D) the Armed Forces Medical Examiner determines,
pursuant to an authorized investigation by the
Department of Defense of matters involving the death of
an individual or individuals, that a factual
determination of the cause or manner of the death of
the individual is necessary; or
(E) pursuant to an authorized investigation being
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
National Transportation Safety Board, or other Federal
agency, an official of such agency with authority to
direct a forensic pathology investigation requests that
an investigation be conducted by the Armed Forces
Medical Examiner.
(2) The authority provided in subsection (a) shall be subject
to the primary jurisdiction, to the extent exercised, of a
State or local government with respect to the conduct of an
investigation or, if outside the United States, of authority
exercised under any applicable Status-of-Forces or other
international agreement between the United States and the
country in which the individual died or was found dead.
(c) Designation of Pathologist.--The Armed Forces Medical
Examiner may designate any qualified pathologist to carry out
the authority provided in subsection (a).
CHAPTER 4--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Sec.
131. Office of the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
[133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.]
133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
133a. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology.
133b. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 131. Office of the Secretary of Defense
(a) * * *
(b) The Office of the Secretary of Defense is composed of the
following:
(1) The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(2) The [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology]
Sec. 133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics
(a) There is an [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, appointed from civilian life by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Under Secretary shall be appointed from among persons who
have an extensive management background in the private sector.
(b) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense, the [Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall perform such
duties and exercise such powers relating to acquisition as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe, including--
(1) supervising Department of Defense acquisition;
(2) establishing policies for acquisition (including
procurement, research and development, [logistics,]
developmental testing, and contract administration) for
all elements of the Department of Defense;
(3) establishing policies for logistics, maintenance,
and sustainment support for all elements of the
Department of Defense;
[(3)] (4) establishing policies of the Department of
Defense for maintenance of the defense industrial base
of the United States; and
[(4)] (5) the authority to direct the Secretaries of
the military departments and the heads of all other
elements of the Department of Defense with regard to
matters for which the Under Secretary has
responsibility.
* * * * * * *
(e)(1) With regard to all matters for which he has
responsibility by law or by direction of the Secretary of
Defense, the [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics takes precedence in the Department of
Defense after the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary
of Defense.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 133b. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness
(a) There is a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Materiel Readiness, appointed from civilian life
by the President by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The Deputy Under Secretary shall be appointed from
among persons with an extensive background in the sustainment
of major weapon systems and combat support equipment.
(b) The Deputy Under Secretary is the principal adviser to
the Secretary and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on logistics and
materiel readiness in the Department of Defense and is the
principal logistics official within the senior management of
the Department of Defense.
(c) The Deputy Under Secretary shall perform such duties
relating to logistics and materiel readiness as the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
may assign, including--
(1) prescribing, by authority of the Secretary of
Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of
logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and
sustainment support in the Department of Defense;
(2) advising and assisting the Secretary of Defense,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology,
and providing guidance to and consulting with the
Secretaries of the military departments, with respect
to logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and
sustainment support in the Department of Defense; and
(3) monitoring and reviewing all logistics,
maintenance, materiel readiness, and sustainment
support programs in the Department of Defense.
Sec. 134. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The Under Secretary takes precedence in the Department of
Defense after the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, the [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, and the Secretaries of the military
departments.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 136. Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
(a) There is an Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, appointed from civilian life by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
* * * * * * *
(d) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness is responsible, subject to the authority, direction,
and control of the Secretary of Defense, for the monitoring of
the operations tempo and personnel tempo of the armed forces.
The Under Secretary shall establish, to the extent practicable,
uniform standards within the Department of Defense for
terminology and policies relating to deployment of units and
personnel away from their assigned duty stations (including the
length of time units or personnel may be away for such a
deployment) and shall establish uniform reporting systems for
tracking deployments.
Sec. 137. Director of Defense Research and Engineering
(a) * * *
(b) Except as otherwise prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall
perform such duties relating to research and engineering as the
[Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology]
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics may prescribe.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 139. Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
(a) * * *
(b) The Director is the principal adviser to the Secretary of
Defense and the [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics on operational test and evaluation in
the Department of Defense and the principal operational test
and evaluation official within the senior management of the
Department of Defense. The Director shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 143. Office of the Secretary of Defense personnel: limitation
(a) Permanent Limitation on OSD Personnel.--[Effective
October 1, 1999, the] The number of OSD personnel may not
exceed [75 percent of the baseline number] 3,767.
[(b) Phased Reduction.--The number of OSD personnel--
[(1) as of October 1, 1997, may not exceed 85 percent
of the baseline number; and
[(2) as of October 1, 1998, may not exceed 80 percent
of the baseline number.
[(c) Baseline Number.--For purposes of this section, the term
``baseline number'' means the number of OSD personnel as of
October 1, 1994.]
[(d)] (b) OSD Personnel Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``OSD personnel'' means military and civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense who are assigned to, or
employed in, functions in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (including Direct Support Activities of that Office and
the Washington Headquarters Services of the Department of
Defense).
[(e)] (c) Limitation on Reassignment of Functions.--In
carrying out reductions in the number of personnel assigned to,
or employed in, the Office of the Secretary of Defense in order
to comply with this section, the Secretary of Defense may not
reassign functions solely in order to evade the requirements
contained in this section.
[(f) Flexibility.--If the Secretary of Defense determines,
and certifies to Congress, that the limitation in subsection
(b) with respect to any fiscal year would adversely affect
United States national security, the Secretary may waive the
limitation under that subsection with respect to that fiscal
year. If the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to
Congress, that the limitation in subsection (a) during fiscal
year 1999 would adversely affect United States national
security, the Secretary may waive the limitation under that
subsection with respect to that fiscal year. The authority
under this subsection may be used only once, with respect to a
single fiscal year.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
* * * * * * *
Sec. 153. Chairman: functions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Risks Under National Military Strategy.--(1) Not later
than January 1 each year, the Chairman shall submit to the
Secretary of Defense a report providing the Chairman's
assessment of the nature and magnitude of the strategic and
military risks associated with executing the missions called
for under the current National Military Strategy.
(2) The Secretary shall forward the report received under
paragraph (1) in any year, with the Secretary's comments
thereon (if any), to Congress with the Secretary's next
transmission to Congress of the annual Department of Defense
budget justification materials in support of the Department of
Defense component of the budget of the President submitted
under section 1105 of title 31 for the next fiscal year. If the
Chairman's assessment in such report in any year is that risk
associated with executing the missions called for under the
National Military Strategy is significant, the Secretary shall
include with the report as submitted to Congress the
Secretary's plan for mitigating that risk.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 180. Service academy athletic programs: review board
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Administrative Provisions.--(1) Each member of the board
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of
the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for [grade GS-18 of the
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5] Executive
Schedule Level IV under section 5376 of title 5, for each day
(including travel time) during which such member is engaged in
the performance of the duties of the board. Members of the
board who are officers or employees of the United States shall
serve without compensation in addition to that received for
their services as officers or employees of the United States.
(2) The members of the board shall be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, while away from their homes or regular
places of business in the performance of services for the
board.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 8--DEFENSE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--COMMON SUPPLY AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 192. Defense Agencies and Department of Defense Field Activities:
oversight by the Secretary of Defense
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Special Rule for Defense Commissary Agency.--
Notwithstanding the results of any periodic review under
subsection (c) with regard to the Defense Commissary Agency,
the Secretary of Defense may not transfer to the Secretary of a
military department the responsibility to manage and fund the
provision of services and supplies provided by the Defense
Commissary Agency unless the transfer of the management and
funding responsibility is specifically authorized by a law
enacted after [the date of the enactment of this subsection]
October 17, 1998.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 9--DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS
Sec.
221. Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency
in budgeting.
* * * * * * *
229. Amounts for declassification of records.
Sec. 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements
(a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of
Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the
amount requested for activities of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization shall be set forth in accordance with the
following program elements:
(1) The Patriot system.
(2) The Navy Area system.
(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system.
(4) The Navy Theater Wide system.
(5) Upper Tier.
[(5)] (6) The Medium Extended Air Defense System.
[(6)] (7) Joint Theater Missile Defense.
[(7)] (8) National Missile Defense.
[(8)] (9) Support Technologies.
[(9)] (10) Family of Systems Engineering and
Integration.
[(10)] (11) Ballistic Missile Defense Technical
Operations.
[(11)] (12) Threat and Countermeasures.
[(12)] (13) International Cooperative Programs.
(14) Space Based Infrared System Low.
(15) Space Based Infrared System High.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 229. Amounts for declassification of records
(a) Specific Identification in Budget.--The Secretary of
Defense shall include in the budget justification materials
submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense
budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the
President under section 1105(a) of title 31) specific
identification, as a budgetary line item, of the amounts
required to carry out programmed activities during that fiscal
year to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order 12958
(50 U.S.C. 435 note), or any successor Executive order, or to
comply with any statutory requirement to declassify Government
records.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 18--MILITARY SUPPORT FOR CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 374. Maintenance and operation of equipment
(a) * * *
(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and in accordance with other
applicable law, the Secretary of Defense may, upon request from
the head of a Federal law enforcement agency, make Department
of Defense personnel available to operate equipment (including
equipment made available under section 372 of this title) with
respect to--
(A) a criminal violation of a provision of law
specified in paragraph (4)(A);
(B) assistance that such agency is authorized to
furnish to a State, local, or foreign government which
is involved in the enforcement of similar laws;
(C) a foreign or domestic counter-terrorism
operation; or
(D) a rendition of a suspected terrorist from a
foreign country to the United States to stand trial.
(2) Department of Defense personnel made available to a
civilian law enforcement agency under this subsection may
operate equipment for the following purposes:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) Subject to joint approval by the Secretary of
Defense and the Attorney General (and the Secretary of
State in the case of a law enforcement operation
outside of the land area of the United States)--
(i) the transportation of civilian law
enforcement personnel along with any other
civilian or military personnel who are
supporting, or conducting, a joint operation
with civilian law enforcement personnel;[;]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec.
481. Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group activity:
annual survey and report.
* * * * * * *
486. Unit operations tempo and personnel tempo: annual report.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 485. Joint warfighting experimentation
(a) * * *
(b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report under this section
shall include, for the fiscal year covered by the report, the
following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) With respect to interoperability of equipment and
forces, any recommendations that the commander
considers appropriate, developed on the basis of joint
warfighting experimentation, for reducing unnecessary
redundancy of equipment and forces, including guidance
regarding the synchronization of the fielding of
advanced technologies among the armed forces to enable
the development and execution of joint operational
concepts.
(6) Recommendations for mission needs statements and
operational requirements related to the joint
experimentation and evaluation process.
(7) Recommendations based on the results of joint
experimentation for the relative priorities for
acquisition programs to meet joint requirements.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 486. Unit operations tempo and personnel tempo: annual report
(a) Inclusion in Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense
shall include in the annual report required by section 113(c)
of this title a description of the operations tempo and
personnel tempo of the armed forces.
(b) Specific Reporting Requirements.--To satisfy subsection
(a), the report shall include the following:
(1) A description of the methods by which each of the
armed forces measures operations tempo and personnel
tempo.
(2) A description of the personnel tempo policies of
each of the armed forces and any changes to these
policies since the preceding report.
(3) A table depicting the active duty end strength
for each of the armed forces for each of the preceding
five years and also depicting the number of members of
each of the armed forces deployed over the same period,
as determined by the Secretary concerned.
(4) An identification of the active and reserve
component units of the armed forces participating at
the battalion, squadron, or an equivalent level (or a
higher level) in contingency operations, major training
events, and other exercises and contingencies of such a
scale that the exercises and contingencies receive an
official designation, that were conducted during the
period covered by the report and the duration of their
participation.
(5) For each of the armed forces, the average number
of days a member of that armed force was deployed away
from the member's home station during the period
covered by the report as compared to recent previous
years for which such information is available.
(6) For each of the armed forces, the number of days
that high demand, low density units (as defined by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were deployed
during the period covered by the report, and whether
these units met the force goals for limiting
deployments, as described in the personnel tempo
policies applicable to that armed force.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``operations tempo'' means the rate at
which units of the armed forces are involved in all
military activities, including contingency operations,
exercises, and training deployments.
(2) The term ``personnel tempo'' means the amount of
time members of the armed forces are engaged in their
official duties, including the rate at which members
are required, as a result of these duties, to spend
nights away from home.
(3) The term ``armed forces'' does not include the
Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in
the Department of the Navy.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 31--ENLISTMENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 503. Enlistments: recruiting campaigns; compilation of directory
information
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Each local educational agency is requested to provide to
the Department of Defense, upon a request made for military
recruiting purposes, the same access to secondary school
students, and to directory information concerning such
students, as is provided generally to post-secondary
educational institutions or to prospective employers of those
students.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 525. Distribution of commissioned officers on active duty in
general officer and flag officer grades
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5)(A) An officer while serving in a position specified in
section 604(b) of this title, if serving in the grade of
general or admiral, is in addition to the number that would
otherwise be permitted for that officer's armed force for
officers serving on active duty in grades above major general
or rear admiral, as the case may be, under the first sentence
of paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable. Any increase by reason
of the preceding sentence in the number of officers of an armed
force serving on active duty in grades above major general or
rear admiral may only be realized by an increase in the number
of lieutenant generals or vice admirals, as the case maybe,
serving on active duty, and any such increase may not be
construed as authorizing an increase in the limitation on the
total number of general or flag officers for that armed force
under section 526(a) of this title or in the number of general
and flag officers that may be designated under section 526(b)
of this title.
* * * * * * *
[(C) This paragraph shall cease to be effective at the end of
September 30, 2000.]
* * * * * * *
(7) An officer of the Army while serving as Superintendent of
the United States Military Academy, if serving in the grade of
lieutenant general, is in addition to the number that would
otherwise be permitted for the Army for officers serving on
active duty in grades above major general under paragraph (1).
An officer of the Navy or Marine Corps while serving as
Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy, if serving
in the grade of vice admiral or lieutenant general, is in
addition to the number that would otherwise be permitted for
the Navy or Marine Corps, respectively, for officers serving on
active duty in grades above major general or rear admiral under
paragraph (1) or (2). An officer while serving as
Superintendent of the United Air Force Academy, if serving in
the grade of lieutenant general, is in addition to the number
that would otherwise be permitted for the Air Force for
officers serving on active duty in grades above major general
under paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 33A--APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION AND
RETIREMENT FOR MEMBERS ON THE WARRANT OFFICER ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
* * * * * * *
Sec. 575. Recommendations for promotion by selection boards
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) The number of officers recommended for promotion from
below the promotion zone may not exceed 10 percent of the total
number recommended, except that the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Transportation, when the Coast Guard is not
operating as a service in the Navy, may authorize such
percentage to be increased to not more than 15 percent. If the
number determined under this subsection within a grade (or
grade and competitive category) is less than one, the board may
recommend one such officer from within that grade (or grade and
competitive category).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--PROMOTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 619a. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: joint duty
assignment required before promotion to general or
flag grade; exceptions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(g) Transition Waiver Authorities.--(1)(A) Until January 1,
1999, the Secretary of Defense may waive subsection (a) in the
case of an officer who served in an assignment (other than a
joint duty assignment) that began before October 1, 1986, and
that involved significant experience in joint matters (as
determined by the Secretary) if the officer served in that
assignment for a period of sufficient duration (which may not
be less than 12 months) for the officer's service to have been
considered a full tour of duty under the policies and
regulations in effect on September 30, 1986.
[(B) Of the total number of appointments to the grades of
brigadier general and rear admiral (lower half) for officers on
the active-duty lists of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps during each of the years 1995 through 1999, the number in
any such year that are made using a waiver under subparagraph
(A) may not exceed the applicable percentage of such total
determined as follows:
Applicable
[Year: Percentage:
1995...................................................... 20
1996...................................................... 15
1997...................................................... 10
1998...................................................... 5.
[(C) The provisions of subsections (c) and (e) apply to
waivers under this paragraph in the same manner as to waivers
under subsection (b).
[(2) Until January 1, 1999, the Secretary of Defense may
waive subsection (d) in the case of an officer granted a waiver
of subsection (a) under the authority of subsection (b)(1).
[(3)(A) An officer described in subparagraph (B) may not be
appointed to the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral
until the officer completes a full tour of duty in a joint duty
assignment.
[(B) Subparagraph (A) applies to an officer--
[(i) who is promoted after January 1, 1994, to the
grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half)
and who receives a waiver of subsection (a) under the
authority of paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
[(ii) who receives a waiver of subsection (d) under
the authority of paragraph (2) of this subsection.]
(g) Limitation for General and Flag Officers Previously
Receiving Joint Duty Assignment Waiver.--A general officer or
flag officer who before January 1, 1999, received a waiver of
subsection (a) under the authority of this subsection (as in
effect before that date) may not be appointed to the grade of
lieutenant general or vice admiral until the officer completes
a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment.
(h) Special Transition Rules for Nuclear Propulsion
Officers.--[(1) Until January 1, 1997, an] An officer of the
Navy designated as a qualified nuclear propulsion officer [may
be] who before January 1, 1997, is appointed to the grade of
rear admiral (lower half) without regard to subsection (a)[. An
officer so appointed may not be appointed] to the grade of rear
admiral until the officer completes a full tour of duty in a
joint duty assignment.
[(2) Not later than March 1 of each year from 1994 through
1997, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives a report on the
implementation during the preceding calendar year of the
transition plan developed by the Secretary pursuant to section
1305(b) of Public Law 100-180 (10 U.S.C. 619a note) with
respect to service by qualified nuclear propulsion officers in
joint duty assignments.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 38--JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 664. Length of joint duty assignments
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Joint Duty Credit for Certain Joint Task Force
Assignments.--(1) * * *
(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a qualifying temporary
joint task force assignment of an officer is a temporary
assignment, any part of which is performed by the officer on or
after [the date of the enactment of this subsection] February
10, 1996--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 688. Retired members: authority to order to active duty; duties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Limitation of Period of Recall Service.--(1) A member
ordered to active duty under subsection (a) may not serve on
active duty pursuant to orders under that subsection [for more
than 12 months within the 24 months] for more than 36 months
within 48 months following the first day of the active duty to
which ordered under that subsection.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 690. Retired members ordered to active duty: limitation on number
(a) General and Flag Officers.--Not more than 15 retired
general officers of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, and
not more than 15 retired flag officers of the Navy, may be on
active duty at any one time. [For the purposes of this
subsection a retired officer ordered to active duty for a
period of 60 days or less is not counted.]
(b) Limitation by Service.--(1) [Not more than 25 officers]
In addition to the officers subject to subsection (a), not more
than 150 officers of any one armed force may be serving on
active duty concurrently pursuant to orders to active duty
issued under section 688 of this title.
(2) In the administration of paragraph (1), the following
officers shall not be counted:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) Any officer assigned to duty as a member of the
Army, Navy, or Air Force Retiree Council for the period
of active duty to which ordered.
(c) Exclusion From Limitations of Officers Recalled for 60
Days or Less.--A retired officer ordered to active duty for a
period of 60 days or less shall not be counted for the purposes
of subsection (a) or (b).
[(c)] (d) Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.--
Subsection (a) does not apply in time of war or of national
emergency declared by Congress or the President after November
30, 1980. Subsection (b) does not apply in time of war or of
national emergency declared by Congress or the President.
Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional
contingencies
(a) * * *
(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty
at the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the
following:
(1) For the Army, 480,000.
(2) For the Navy, [372,696] 371,781.
(3) For the Marine Corps, [172,200] 172,148.
(4) For the Air Force, [370,802] 360,877.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 45--THE UNIFORM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 777. Wearing of insignia of higher grade before promotion
(frocking): authority; restrictions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Limitation on Number of Officers Frocked to Specified
Grades.--(1) The total number of colonels and Navy captains on
the active-duty list who are authorized as described in
subsection (a) to wear the insignia for the grade of brigadier
general or rear admiral (lower half), as the case may be, [may
not exceed the following:
[(A) During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 75.
[(B) During fiscal year 1998, 55.
[(C) After fiscal year 1998, 35.] may not exceed 35.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 49--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
Sec.
971. Service credit: officers may not count service performed while
serving as cadet or midshipman.
* * * * * * *
[983. Institutions of higher education that prohibit Senior ROTC units:
denial of Department of Defense grants and contracts.]
983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or
military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and contracts
from Department of Defense, Department of Education, and
certain other departments and agencies.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 973. Duties: officers on active duty; performance of civil
functions restricted
(a) * * *
(b)(1) This subsection applies--
(A) to a regular officer of an armed force on the
active-duty list (and a regular officer of the Coast
Guard on the active duty promotion list);
(B) to a retired regular officer of an armed force
serving on active duty under a call or order to active
duty for a period in excess of [180] 270 days; and
(C) to a reserve officer of an armed force serving on
active duty under a call or order to active duty for a
period in excess of [180] 270 days.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 977. Operation of commissary stores: assignment of active duty
members generally prohibited
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Exception for Certain Navy Personnel.--(1) The Secretary
of the Navy may assign to the Defense Commissary Agency a
member of the Navy on active duty whose assignment afloat is
part of the operation of a ship's food service or a ship's
store. Any such assignment shall be on a nonreimbursable basis.
(2) The number of such members assigned to the Defense
Commissary Agency during any period may not exceed [the lesser
of (A) the number of members so assigned on October 1, 1993,
and (B)].
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 983. Institutions of higher education that prohibit Senior ROTC
units: denial of Department of Defense grants and
contracts
[(a) Denial of Department of Defense Grants and Contracts.--
(1) No funds appropriated or otherwise available to the
Department of Defense may be made obligated by contract or by
grant (including a grant of funds to be available for student
aid) to any institution of higher education that, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense, has an anti-ROTC policy and at
which, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary would
otherwise maintain or seek to establish a unit of the Senior
Reserve Officer Training Corps or at which the Secretary would
otherwise enroll or seek to enroll students for participation
in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at
another nearby institution of higher education.
[(2) In the case of an institution of higher education that
is ineligible for Department of Defense grants and contracts by
reason of paragraph (1), the prohibition under that paragraph
shall cease to apply to that institution upon a determination
by the Secretary that the institution no longer has an anti-
ROTC policy.
[(b) Notice of Determination.--Whenever the Secretary makes a
determination under subsection (a) that an institution has an
anti-ROTC policy, or that an institution previously determined
to have an anti-ROTC policy no longer has such a policy, the
Secretary--
[(1) shall transmit notice of that determination to
the Secretary of Education and to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives; and
[(2) shall publish in the Federal Register notice of
that determination and of the effect of that
determination under subsection (a)(1) on the
eligibility of that institution for Department of
Defense grants and contracts.
[(c) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--The Secretary
shall publish in the Federal Register once every six months a
list of each institution of higher education that is currently
ineligible for Department of Defense grants and contracts by
reason of a determination of the Secretary under subsection
(a).
[(d) Anti-ROTC Policy.--In this section, the term ``anti-ROTC
policy'' means a policy or practice of an institution of higher
education that--
[(1) prohibits, or in effect prevents, the Secretary
of Defense from maintaining or establishing a unit of
the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at that
institution, or
[(2) prohibits, or in effect prevents, a student at
that institution from enrolling in a unit of the Senior
Reserve Officer Training Corps at another institution
of higher education.]
Sec. 983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or
military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and
contracts from Department of Defense, Department of
Education, and certain other departments and
agencies
(a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to Campus.--No
funds described in subsection (d) may be provided by contract
or by grant (including a grant of funds to be available for
student aid) to a covered educational entity if the Secretary
of Defense determines that the covered educational entity has a
policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either
prohibits, or in effect prevents--
(1) the Secretary of a military department from
maintaining, establishing, or operating a unit of the
Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance
with section 654 of this title and other applicable
Federal laws) at the covered educational entity; or
(2) a student at the covered educational entity from
enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer
Training Corps at another institution of higher
education.
(b) Denial of Funds for Preventing Military Recruiting on
Campus.--No funds described in subsection (d) may be provided
by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be
available for student aid) to a covered educational entity if
the Secretary of Defense determines that the covered
educational entity has a policy or practice (regardless of when
implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents--
(1) the Secretary of a military department from
gaining entry to campuses, or access to students (who
are 17 years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes
of military recruiting; or
(2) access by military recruiters for purposes of
military recruiting to the following information
pertaining to students (who are 17 years of age or
older) enrolled at the covered educational entity:
(A) Names, addresses, and telephone listings.
(B) Date and place of birth, levels of
education, academic majors, degrees received,
and the most recent educational institution
enrolled in by the student.
(c) Exceptions.--The limitation established in subsection (a)
or (b) shall not apply to a covered educational entity if the
Secretary of Defense determines that--
(1) the covered educational entity has ceased the
policy or practice described in that subsection; or
(2) the institution of higher education involved has
a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical
religious affiliation.
(d) Covered Funds.--The limitations established in
subsections (a) and (b) apply to the following:
(1) Any funds made available for the Department of
Defense.
(2) Any funds made available in a Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
(e) Notice of Determinations.--Whenever the Secretary of
Defense makes a determination under subsection (a), (b), or
(c), the Secretary--
(1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to
the Secretary of Education and to Congress; and
(2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of
the determination and the effect of the determination
on the eligibility of the covered educational entity
for contracts and grants.
(f) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--The Secretary of
Defense shall publish in the Federal Register once every six
months a list of each covered educational entity that is
currently ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a
determination of the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b).
(g) Covered Educational Entity.--In this section, the term
``covered educational entity'' means an institution of higher
education, or a subelement of an institution of higher
education.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1060a. Special supplemental food program
(a) [Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may] Program
Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a program
to provide special supplemental food benefits to members of the
armed forces on duty at stations outside the United States (and
its territories and possessions) and to eligible civilians
serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces
outside the United States (and its territories and
possessions).
[(b) Federal Payments and Commodities.--For the purpose of
obtaining Federal payments and commodities in order to carry
out the program referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall make available to the Secretary of Defense
the same payments and commodities as are made for the special
supplemental food program in the United States under section 17
of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786). The
Secretary of Defense may use funds available for the Department
of Defense to carry out the program under subsection (a).]
(b) Funding Mechanism.--The Secretary of Defense shall use
funds available for the Department of Defense to carry out the
program under subsection (a).
(c) Program Administration.--(1)(A) The Secretary of Defense
shall administer the program referred to in subsection (a) and,
except as provided in subparagraph (B), shall determine
eligibility for program benefits under the criterion published
by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 17 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786).
[(B) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
governing computation of income eligibility standards for
families of individuals participating in the program under this
section.]
(B) In determining income eligibility standards for families
of individuals participating in the program under this section,
the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent practicable, use
the criterion described in subparagraph (A). The Secretary
shall also consider the value of housing in kind provided to
the individual when determining program eligibility.
(2) The program benefits provided under the program shall be
similar to benefits provided by State and local agencies in the
United States, particularly with respect to nutrition education
and counseling.
(3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Defense, if so requested by the
Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of carrying out the
program under subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
Sec.
1071. Purpose of this chapter.
* * * * * * *
1074f. Medical tracking system for members deployed overseas.
1074g. Pharmacy benefits program.
* * * * * * *
1095b. TRICARE program: contractor payment of certain claims.
1095c. TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of claims.
1095d. TRICARE: program waiver of certain deductibles.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1073. Administration of this chapter
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Secretary
of Defense shall administer this chapter for the armed forces
under his jurisdiction, the Secretary of Transportation shall
administer this chapter for the Coast Guard when the Coast
Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy, and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall administer this
chapter for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and the Public Health Service. This chapter shall be
administered consistent with the Assisted Suicide Funding
Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14401 et seq.).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1074g. Pharmacy benefits program
(a) Pharmacy Benefits.--(1) The Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall
establish an effective, efficient, integrated pharmacy benefits
program under this chapter (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the ``pharmacy benefits program'').
(2)(A) The pharmacy benefits program shall include a uniform
formulary of pharmaceutical agents, which shall assure the
availability of pharmaceutical agents in a complete range of
therapeutic classes. The selection for inclusion on the uniform
formulary of particular pharmaceutical agents in each
therapeutic class shall be based on the relative clinical and
cost effectiveness of the agents in such class.
(B) The Secretary shall establish procedures for the
selection of particular pharmaceutical agents for the uniform
formulary, and shall begin to implement the uniform formulary
not later than October 1, 2000.
(C) Pharmaceutical agents included on the uniform formulary
shall be available to eligible covered beneficiaries through--
(i) facilities of the uniformed services, consistent
with the scope of health care services offered in such
facilities;
(ii) retail pharmacies designated or eligible under
the TRICARE program or the Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Uniformed Services to provide
pharmaceutical agents to eligible covered
beneficiaries; or
(iii) the national mail order pharmacy program.
(3) The pharmacy benefits program shall assure the
availability of clinically appropriate pharmaceutical agents to
members of the armed forces, including, if appropriate, agents
not included on the uniform formulary described in paragraph
(2).
(4) The pharmacy benefits program may provide that prior
authorization be required for certain categories of
pharmaceutical agents to assure that the use of such agents is
clinically appropriate. Such categories shall be the following:
(A) High-cost injectable agents.
(B) High-cost biotechnology agents.
(C) Pharmaceutical agents with high potential for
inappropriate use.
(D) Pharmaceutical agents otherwise determined by the
Secretary to require prior authorization.
(5)(A) The pharmacy benefits program shall include procedures
for eligible covered beneficiaries to receive pharmaceutical
agents not included on the uniform formulary. Such procedures
shall include peer review procedures under which the Secretary
may determine that there is a clinical justification for the
use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not on the uniform
formulary, in which case the pharmaceutical agent shall be
provided under the same terms and conditions as an agent on the
uniform formulary.
(B) If the Secretary determines that there is not a clinical
justification for the use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not
on the uniform formulary under the procedures established
pursuant to subparagraph (A), such pharmaceutical agent shall
be available through at least one of the means described in
paragraph (2)(C) under terms and conditions that may include
cost sharing by the eligible covered beneficiary in addition to
any such cost sharing applicable to agents on the uniform
formulary.
(6) The Secretary of Defense shall, after consultation with
the other administering Secretaries, promulgate regulations to
carry out this subsection.
(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
authorizing a contractor to penalize an eligible covered
beneficiary with respect to, or decline coverage for, a
maintenance pharmaceutical that is not on the list of preferred
pharmaceuticals of the contractor and that was prescribed for
the beneficiary before the date of the enactment of this
section and stabilized the medical condition of the
beneficiary.
(b) Establishment of Committee.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military
departments, establish a pharmaceutical and therapeutics
committee for the purpose of developing the uniform formulary
of pharmaceutical agents required by subsection (a), reviewing
such formulary on a periodic basis, and making additional
recommendations regarding the formulary as the committee
determines necessary and appropriate. The committee shall
include representatives of pharmacies of the uniformed services
facilities, contractors responsible for the TRICARE retail
pharmacy program, contractors responsible for the national mail
order pharmacy program, providers in facilities of the
uniformed services, and TRICARE network providers. Committee
members shall have expertise in treating the medical needs of
the populations served through such entities and in the range
of pharmaceutical and biological medicines available for
treating such populations.
(2) Not later than 90 days after the establishment of the
pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee by the Secretary, the
committee shall submit a proposed uniform formulary to the
Secretary.
(c) Advisory Panel.--(1) Concurrent with the establishment of
the pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee under subsection
(b), the Secretary shall establish a Uniform Formulary
Beneficiary Advisory Panel to review and comment on the
development of the uniform formulary. The Secretary shall
consider the comments of the panel before implementing the
uniform formulary or implementing changes to the uniform
formulary.
(2) The Secretary shall determine the size and membership of
the panel established under paragraph (1), which shall include
members that represent nongovernmental organizations and
associations that represent the views and interests of a large
number of eligible covered beneficiaries.
(d) Inapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply
to the committee established under subsection (b) or the panel
established under subsection (c).
(e) Procedures.--In the operation of the pharmacy benefits
program under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall
assure through management and new contractual arrangements that
financial resources are aligned such that the cost of
prescriptions is borne by the organization that is financially
responsible for the health care of the eligible covered
beneficiary.
(f) Pharmacy Data Transaction Service.--Not later than April
1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall implement the use of
the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service in all fixed facilities
of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary, the TRICARE network retail pharmacy program, and the
national mail order pharmacy program.
(g) Definition of Eligible Covered Beneficiary.--As used in
this section, the term ``eligible covered beneficiary'' means a
covered beneficiary for whom eligibility to receive pharmacy
benefits through the means described in subsection (a)(2)(C) is
established under this chapter or another provision of law.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1076a. Dependents' dental program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
( j) Limitation on Reduction of Benefits.--The Secretary of
Defense may not reduce benefits provided under this section
until--
(1) * * *
(2) [1] one year has elapsed following the date of
such notice.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1093. Performance of abortions: restrictions
(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--Funds available to the
Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the
fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy
is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest which has
been reported to a law enforcement agency.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered
beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers.
(a)(1) In the case of a person who is a covered beneficiary,
the United States shall have the right to collect from a third-
party payer [the reasonable costs of] reasonable charges for
health care services incurred by the United States on behalf of
such person through a facility of the uniformed services to the
extent that the person would be eligible to receive
reimbursement or indemnification from the third-party payer if
the person were to incur [such costs] such charges on the
person's own behalf. If the insurance, medical service, or
health plan of that payer includes a requirement for a
deductible or copayment by the beneficiary of the plan, then
the amount that the United States may collect from the third-
party payer is [the reasonable cost of] a reasonable charge for
the care provided less the appropriate deductible or copayment
amount.
* * * * * * *
[(f) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other
administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations for the
administration of this section. Such regulations shall provide
for computation of the reasonable cost of health care services.
Computation of such reasonable cost may be based on--
[(1) per diem rates;
[(2) all-inclusive per visit rates;
[(3) diagnosis-related groups; or
[(4) such other method as may be appropriate.]
(f) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other
administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations for the
administration of this section. Such regulations shall provide
for the computation of reasonable charges for inpatient
services, outpatient services, and other health care services.
Computation of such reasonable charges may be based on--
(1) per diem rates;
(2) all-inclusive per visit rates;
(3) diagnosis-related groups;
(4) rates prescribed under the regulations prescribed
to implement sections 1079 and 1086 of this title; or
(5) such other method as may be appropriate.
(g)(1) Amounts collected under this section from a third-
party payer or under any other provision of law from any other
payer for [the costs of] health care services provided at or
through a facility of the uniformed services shall be credited
to the appropriation supporting the maintenance and operation
of the facility and shall not be taken into consideration in
establishing the operating budget of the facility.
* * * * * * *
(h) In this section:
(1) [The term ``third-party payer'' means an entity
that provides an insurance, medical service, or health
plan by contract or agreement, including an automobile
liability insurance or no fault insurance carrier.] The
term ``third-party payer'' means an entity that
provides an insurance, medical service, or health plan
by contract or agreement, including an automobile
liability insurance or no fault insurance carrier, and
any other plan or program that is designed to provide
compensation or coverage for expenses incurred by a
beneficiary for health care services or products. Such
term also includes entities described in subsection (j)
under the terms and to the extent provided in such
subsection and a workers' compensation program or plan.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1095c. TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of claims
(a) Reduction of Processing Time.--(1) With respect to claims
for payment for medical care provided under the TRICARE
program, the Secretary of Defense shall implement a system for
processing of claims under which--
(A) 95 percent of all mistake-free claims must be
processed not later than 30 days after the date that
such claims are submitted to the claims processor; and
(B) 100 percent of all mistake-free claims must be
processed not later than 100 days after the date that
such claims are submitted to the claims processor.
(2) The Secretary may, under the system required by paragraph
(1) and consistent with the provisions in chapter 39 of title
31, United States Code (commonly referred to as the ``Prompt
Payment Act''), require that interest be paid on claims that
are not processed within 30 days.
(b) Requirement to Provide Start-up Time For Certain
Contractors.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall not require
that a contractor described in paragraph (2) begin to provide
managed care support pursuant to a contract to provide such
support under the TRICARE program until at least nine months
after the date of the award of the contract. In such case the
contractor may begin to provide managed care support pursuant
to the contract as soon as practicable after the award of the
contract, but in no case later than one year after the date of
such award.
(2) A contractor under this paragraph is a contractor who is
awarded a contract to provide managed care support under the
TRICARE program--
(A) who has not previously been awarded such a
contract by the Department of Defense; or
(B) who has previously been awarded such a contract
by the Department of Defense but for whom the
subcontractors have not previously been awarded the
subcontracts for such a contract.
Sec. 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles
(a) Waiver Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may waive
the deductible payable for medical care provided under the
TRICARE program to an eligible dependent of--
(1) a member of a reserve component on active duty
pursuant to a call or order to active duty for a period
of less than one year; or
(2) a member of the National Guard on full-time
National Guard duty pursuant to a call or order to
full-time National Guard duty for a period of less than
one year.
(b) Eligible Dependent.--As used in this section, the term
``eligible dependent'' means a dependent described
subparagraphs (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this
title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 61--RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY
Sec.
1201. Regulars and members on active duty for more than 30 days:
retirement.
* * * * * * *
1220. Members dying in civilian medical facilities: authority for
determination of later time of death to allow disability
retirement.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1220. Members dying in civilian medical facilities: authority for
determination of later time of death to allow
disability retirement
(a) Authority for Later Time-of-Death Determination To Allow
Disability Retirement.--In the case of a member of the armed
forces who dies in a civilian medical facility in a State, the
Secretary concerned may, solely for the purpose of allowing
retirement of the member under section 1201 or 1204 of this
title and subject to subsection (b), specify a date and time of
death of the member later than the date and time of death
determined by the attending physician in that civilian medical
facility.
(b) Limitations.--A date and time of death may be determined
by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a) only if that
date and time--
(1) are consistent with the date and time of death
that reasonably could have been determined by an
attending physician in a military medical facility if
the member had died in a military medical facility in
the same State as the civilian medical facility; and
(2) are not more than 48 hours later than the date
and time of death determined by the attending physician
in the civilian medical facility.
(c) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State''
includes the District of Columbia and any Commonwealth or
possession of the United States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 69--RETIRED GRADE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Reserve Officers.--(1) Unless entitled to a higher grade,
or to credit for satisfactory service in a higher grade, under
some other provision of law, a person who is entitled to
retired pay under chapter [1225] 1223 of this title shall, upon
application under section 12731 of this title, be credited with
satisfactory service in the highest grade in which that person
served satisfactorily at any time in the armed forces, as
determined by the Secretary concerned in accordance with this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
(5) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a
military department to reduce the 3-year period required by
paragraph (3)(A) to a period not less than 2 years in the case
of retirements effective during the period beginning on [the
date of the enactment of this paragraph] October 17, 1998, and
ending on September 30, 2001. The number of reserve
commissioned officers of an armed force in the same grade for
whom a reduction is made during any fiscal year in the period
of service-in-grade otherwise required under this paragraph may
not exceed the number equal to 2 percent of the strength
authorized for that fiscal year for reserve commissioned
officers of that armed force in an active status in that grade.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 71--COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY
Sec.
1401. Computation of retired pay.
* * * * * * *
1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed
services retirees.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1401a. Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect
changes in Consumer Price Index
(a) * * *
(b) Cost-of-Living Adjustments Based on CPI Increases.--
(1) [In general.--] Increase required.--Effective on
December 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall
increase the retired pay of members and former members
entitled to that pay in accordance with paragraphs (2)
and (3).
(2) Pre-august 1, 1986 [members.--
[(A) General rule.--The Secretary shall]
members.--The Secretary shall increase the
retired pay of each member and former member
who first became a member of a uniformed
service before August 1, 1986, by the percent
(adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1
percent) by which--
[(i)] (A) the price index for the base
quarter of that year, exceeds
[(ii)] (B) the base index.
[(B) Special rule for fiscal year 1996.--In
the case of the increase in retired pay that,
pursuant to paragraph (1), becomes effective on
December 1, 1995, the initial month for which
such increase is payable as part of such
retired pay shall (notwithstanding such
December 1 effective date) be March 1996.
[(C) Inapplicability to disability
retirees.--Subparagraph (B) does not apply with
respect to the retired pay of a member retired
under chapter 61 of this title.
[(3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--If the percent
determined under paragraph (2) is greater than 1
percent, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay
of each member and former member who first became a
member on or after August 1, 1986, by the difference
between--
[(A) the percent determined under paragraph
(2); and
[(B) 1 percent.]
(3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--
(A) Members electing 15-year career status
bonus.--In the case of a member or former
member who first became a member on or after
August 1, 1986, and who elected to receive a
bonus under section 321 of title 37, the
Secretary shall increase the retired pay of the
member or former member (unless the percent
determined under paragraph (2) is less than 1
percent) by the difference between--
(i) the percent determined under
paragraph (2); and
(ii) 1 percent.
(B) Members not electing 15-year career
status bonus.--In the case of a member or
former member who first became a member on or
after August 1, 1986, and who did not elect to
receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37,
the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of
the member or former member--
(i) if the percent determined under
paragraph (2) is equal to or greater
than 3 percent, by the difference
between--
(I) the percent determined
under paragraph (2); and
(II) 1 percent; and
(ii) if the percent determined under
paragraph (2) is less than 3 percent,
by the lesser of--
(I) the percent determined
under paragraph (2); or
(II) 2 percent.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1406. Retired pay base for members who first became members before
September 8, 1980: final basic pay
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Special Rule for Former Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the
JCS, Chiefs of Service, and Senior Enlisted Members.--
(1) * * *
(2) Exception for members reduced in grade or who do
not serve satisfactorily.--Paragraph (1) does not apply
in the case of a member who, while or after serving in
a position specified in that paragraph and by reason of
conduct occurring [on or after the date of the
enactment of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999] after October
16, 1998--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1409. Retired pay multiplier
(a) Retired Pay Multiplier for Regular-Service Nondisability
Retirement.--In computing--
(b) Percentage.--
(1) * * *
(2) Reduction applicable to certain new-retirement
members with less than 30 years of service.--In the
case of a member who first became a member of a
uniformed service after July 31, 1986, has elected to
receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37, has less
than 30 years of creditable service, and is under the
age of 62 at the time of retirement, the percentage
determined under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1410. Restoral of full retirement amount at age 62 for members
entering on or after August 1, 1986
(a) In General.--In the case of a member or former member who
first became a member of a uniformed service on or after August
1, 1986, and who becomes entitled to retired pay before the age
of 62, in accordance with subsection (b) or (c), as applicable.
(b) Members Receiving Career Status Bonus.--In the case of a
member or former member described in subsection (a) who
received a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the retired pay
of the member or former member shall be recomputed under
subsection (a) the retired pay of such member or former member
shall be recomputed, effective on the first day of the first
month beginning after the member or former member attains 62
years of age, so as to be the amount equal to the amount of
retired pay to which the member or former member would be
entitled on [that date] the effective date of the recomputation
if--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Members Not Receiving Career Status Bonus.--In the case
of a member or former member described in subsection (a) who
did not receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the
retired pay of the member or former member shall be recomputed
under subsection (a) so as to be the amount equal to the amount
of retired pay to which the member or former member would be
entitled on the effective date of the recomputation if
increases in the retired pay of the member or former member
under section 1401a(b) of this title had been computed as
provided in paragraph (2) of that section (rather than under
paragraph (3)(B) of that section).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed
services retirees
(a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations for such purpose, pay to each
eligible disabled uniformed services retiree a monthly amount
determined under subsection (b).
(b) Amount.--The amount to be paid (subject to the
availability of appropriations) to an eligible disabled
uniformed services retiree in accordance with subsection (a) is
the following:
(1) For any month for which the retiree has a
qualifying service-connected disability rated as total,
$300.
(2) For any month for which the retiree has a
qualifying service-connected disability rated as 90
percent, $200.
(3) For any month for which the retiree has a
qualifying service-connected disability rated as 80
percent or 70 percent, $100.
(c) Eligible Disabled Uniformed Services Retiree Defined.--In
this section, the term ``eligible disabled military retiree''
means a member of the uniformed services in a retired status
(who is retired under a provision of law other than chapter 61
of this title) who--
(1) completed at least 20 years of service in the
uniformed services that are creditable for purposes of
computing the amount of retired pay to which the member
is entitled; and
(2) has a qualifying service-connected disability.
(d) Qualifying Service-Connected Disability Defined.--In this
section, the term ``qualifying service-connected disability''
means a service-connected disability that--
(1) was incurred or aggravated in the performance of
duty as a member of a uniformed service, as determined
by the Secretary concerned; and
(2) is rated as not less than 70 percent disabling--
(A) by the Secretary concerned as of the date
on which the member is retired from the
uniformed services; or
(B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
within four years following the date on which
the member is retired from the uniformed
services.
(e) Status of Payments.--Payments under this section are not
retired pay.
(f) Source of Funds.--(1) Payments under this section for any
fiscal year shall be paid out of funds appropriated for pay and
allowances payable by the Secretary concerned for that fiscal
year.
(2) If the amount of funds available to the Secretary
concerned for any fiscal year for payments under this section
is less than the amount required to make such payments to all
eligible disabled uniformed services retirees for that year,
the Secretary shall make such payments first to retirees
described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), then (to the
extent funds are available) to retirees described in paragraph
(2) of that subsection, and then (to the extent funds are
available) to retirees described in paragraph (3) of that
subsection.
(g) Other Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The terms ``compensation'' and ``service-
connected'' have the meanings given those terms in
section 101 of title 38.
(2) The term ``disability rated as total'' means--
(A) a disability that is rated as total under
the standard schedule of rating disabilities in
use by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or
(B) a disability for which the schedular
rating is less than total but for which a
rating of total is assigned by reason of
inability of the disabled person concerned to
secure or follow a substantially gainful
occupation as a result of service-connected
disabilities.
(3) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay,
emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1448. Application of Plan
(a) * * *
(b) Insurable Interest and Former Spouse Coverage.--
(1) * * *
(3) Former spouse coverage by persons already
participating in plan.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Effective date of election.--An election
under this paragraph is effective as of--
(i) * * *
(ii) in the case of a person required
(as described in section 1450(f )(3)(B)
of this title) to make the election by
reason of a court order or filing the
date of which is [on or after the date
of the enactment of the subparagraph]
after October 16, 1998, the first day
of the first month which begins after
the date of that court order or filing.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1451. Amount of annuity
(a) * * *
(h) Adjustments to Base Amount.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Disregarding of retired pay reductions for
retirement of certain members before 30 years of
service.--Computation of a member's retired pay for
purposes of this section shall be made without regard
to any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of this
title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 74--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1461. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definition
(a) There is established on the books of the Treasury a fund
to be known as the Department of Defense Military Retirement
Fund (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the ``Fund''),
which shall be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.
The Fund shall be used for the accumulation of funds in order
to finance on an actuarially sound basis liabilities of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce under
military retirement and survivor benefit programs.
(b) In this chapter, the term ``military retirement and
survivor benefit programs'' means--
(1) the provisions of this title and the Coast and
Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' Act of 1948 (33
U.S.C. 853a et seq.) creating entitlement to, or
determining the amount of, retired or retainer pay;
(2) the programs under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Defense providing annuities for survivors
of members and former members of the armed forces,
including chapter 73 of this title, section 4 of Public
Law 92-425, and section 5 of Public Law 96-402; [and]
(3) the authority provided in section 1408(h) of this
title[.]; and
(4) the programs under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Commerce providing annuities for
survivors of members and former members of the NOAA
Corps.
(c) In this chapter, the term ``NOAA Corps'' means the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned
Corps and its predecessors.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1463. Payments from the Fund
(a) There shall be paid from the Fund--
(1) retired pay payable to members on the retired
lists of the Army, Navy, Air Force, [and Marine Corps]
Marine Corps, and the NOAA Corps;
* * * * * * *
(4) benefits payable under programs under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Commerce that provide annuities for
survivors of members and former members of the [armed
forces] uniformed services, including chapter 73 of
this title, section 4 of Public Law 92-425, and section
5 of Public Law 96-402; and
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1464. Board of Actuaries
(a) * * *
(b) The Board shall report to the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Commerce with respect to the NOAA Corps
annually on the actuarial status of the Fund and shall furnish
its advice and opinion on matters referred to it by the
Secretary.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1465. Determination of contributions to the Fund
(a)(1) Not later than six months after the Board of Actuaries
is first appointed, the Board shall determine the amount that
is the present value (as of October 1, 1984) of future benefits
payable from the Fund that are attributable to service in the
armed forces performed before October 1, 1984. That amount is
the original unfunded liability of the Fund. The Board shall
determine the period of time over which the original unfunded
liability should be liquidated and shall determine an
amortization schedule for the liquidation of such liability
over that period. Contributions to the Fund for the liquidation
of the original unfunded liability in accordance with such
schedule shall be made as provided in section 1466(b) of this
title.
(2) Not later than January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Commerce
shall provide to the Board the amount that is the present value
(as of October 1, 1999) of future benefits payable from the
Fund that are attributable to service in the NOAA Corps
performed before October 1, 1999. That amount is the NOAA Corps
original unfunded liability of the Fund. The Board shall
determine the period of time over which that unfunded liability
should be liquidated and shall determine an amortization
schedule for the liquidation of such liability over that
period. Contributions to the Fund for the liquidation of the
original unfunded liability in accordance with that schedule
shall be made as provided in section 1466(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce
shall determine each year, in sufficient time for inclusion in
budget requests for the following fiscal year, the total amount
of Department of Defense contributions and the Department of
Commerce contributions with respect to the NOAA Corps to be
made to the Fund during that fiscal year under section 1466(a)
of this title. That amount shall be the sum of the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) The product of--
(i) the current estimate of the value of the
single level percentage of basic pay to be
determined under subsection (c)(1)(C) at the
time of the next actuarial valuation under
subsection (c); and
(ii) the total amount of basic pay expected
to be paid during that fiscal year to members
of the NOAA Corps.
(2) The amount determined under paragraph (1) for any fiscal
year is the amount needed to be appropriated to the Department
of Defense and the Department of Commerce for that fiscal year
for payments to be made to the Fund during that year under
section 1466(a) of this title. The President shall include not
less than the full amount so determined in the budget
transmitted to Congress for that fiscal year under section 1105
of title 31 and shall include separate amounts for the
Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce. The
President may comment and make recommendations concerning any
such amount.
(c)(1) Not less often than every four years, the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Commerce with respect to the NOAA
Corps shall carry out an actuarial valuation of Department of
Defense military retirement and survivor benefit programs. Each
actuarial valuation of such programs shall include--
(A) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age
normal cost method) of a single level percentage of
basic pay for members of the armed forces (other than
the Coast Guard) on active duty (other than active duty
for training) or full-time National Guard duty (other
than full-time National Guard duty for training only);
[and]
(B) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age
normal cost method) of a single level percentage of
basic pay and of compensation (paid pursuant to section
206 of title 37) for members of the Ready Reserve of
the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard and other
than members on full-time National Guard duty other
than for training) who are not otherwise described by
subparagraph (A)[.]; and
(C) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age
normal cost method) of a single level percentage of
basic pay for members of the NOAA Corps.
Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of
subsection (b) and section 1466(a) of this title.
Sec. 1466. Payments into the Fund
(a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce
with respect to the NOAA Corps shall pay into the Fund at the
end of each month as the [Department of Defense] contribution
to the Fund for that month the amount that is the sum of the
following:
(1) The product of--
(A) the level percentage of basic pay
determined using all the methods and
assumptions approved for the most recent (as of
the first day of the current fiscal year)
actuarial valuation under section 1465(c)(1)(A)
and 1465(c)(1)(C) of this title (except that
any statutory change in the military retirement
and survivor benefit systems that is effective
after the date of that valuation and on or
before the first day of the current fiscal year
shall be used in such determination); and
(B) the total amount of basic pay accrued for
that month by members of the armed forces
(other than the Coast Guard) on active duty
(other than active duty for training) or full-
time National Guard duty (other than full-time
National Guard duty for training only) and by
members of the NOAA Corps.
(2) The product of--
(A) the level percentage of basic pay and of
compensation (paid pursuant to section 206 of
title 37) determined using all the methods and
assumptions approved for the most recent (as of
the first day of the current fiscal year)
actuarial valuation under section 1465(c)(1)(B)
of this title (except that any statutory change
in the military retirement and survivor benefit
systems that is effective after the date of
that valuation and on or before the first day
of the current fiscal year shall be used in
such determination); and
(B) the total amount of basic pay and of
compensation (paid pursuant to section 206 of
title 37) accrued for that month by members of
the Ready Reserve of the armed forces (other
than the Coast Guard and other than members on
full-time National Guard duty other than for
training) who are not otherwise described in
paragraph (1)(B).
Amounts paid into the Fund under this subsection shall be paid
from funds available for the pay of members of the armed forces
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military
department or by members of the NOAA Corps.
(b)(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of
the Treasury shall promptly pay into the Fund from the General
Fund of the Treasury the amount certified to the Secretary by
the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (3). Such payment
shall be the contribution to the Fund for that fiscal year
required by sections 1465(a) and 1465(c) of this title.
(2) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of
Defense shall determine the sum of the following:
(A) The amount of the payment for that year under the
amortization schedule determined by the Board of
Actuaries under section 1465(a) of this title for the
amortization of the original unfunded liability and the
NOAA original unfunded liability of the Fund.
(B) The amount (including any negative amount) for
that year under the most recent amortization schedule
determined by the Secretary of Defense under section
1465(c)(2) of this title for the amortization of any
cumulative unfunded liability (or any gain) to the Fund
resulting from changes in benefits.
(C) The amount (including any negative amount) for
that year under the most recent amortization schedule
determined by the Secretary of Defense under section
1465(c)(3) of this title for the amortization of any
cumulative actuarial gain or loss to the Fund.
(c)(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall process, on
behalf of the Fund, payments under section 1463 of this title
to members on the retired list of the NOAA Corps and to
survivors of members and former members of the NOAA Corps.
(2) Payments made by the Secretary of Transportation under
paragraph (1) shall be charged against the Fund.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 75--DEATH BENEFITS
Sec. 1491. Honor guard details at funerals of veterans
(a) * * *
(b) Composition of Honor Guard Details.--The Secretary of
each military department shall ensure that an honor guard
detail for the funeral of a veteran [consists of not less than
three persons and (unless a bugler is part of the detail) has
the capability to play a recorded version of Taps.] consists of
not less than two persons, who shall, at a minimum, perform a
ceremony to fold and present a United States flag to the
deceased veteran's family and who shall (unless a bugler is
part of the detail) have the capability to play a recorded
version of Taps. At least one member of an honor guard detail
provided in response to a request to the Department of Defense
shall be a member of the same armed force as the deceased
veteran.
* * * * * * *
(d) Support for Nongovernmental Organizations.--The Secretary
of a military department may provide material, equipment, and
training to support nongovernmental organizations, as necessary
for the support of honor guard activities.
[(d)] (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall by
regulation establish a system for selection of units of the
armed forces and other organizations to provide honor guard
details. [The system shall place an emphasis on balancing the
funeral detail workload among the units and organizations
providing honor guard details in an equitable manner as they
are able to respond to requests for such details in terms of
geographic proximity and available resources. The Secretary
shall provide in such regulations that the armed force in which
a veteran served shall not be considered to be a factor when
selecting the military unit or other organization to provide an
honor guard detail for the funeral of the veteran.] The
Secretary shall require that procedures be established by the
Secretaries of the military departments for coordinating and
responding to requests for honor guard details, for
establishing standards and protocols for, responding to
requests for and conducting military funeral honors, and for
providing training and quality control.
[(e)] (f) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives
a report not later than January 31 of each year beginning with
2001 and ending with 2005 on the experience of the Department
of Defense under this section. Each such report shall provide
data on the number of funerals supported under this section,
the cost for that support, shown by manpower and other cost
factors, and the number and costs of funerals supported by each
participating organization. The data in the report shall be
presented in a standard format, regardless of military
department or other organization.
(g) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive
any of the provisions of this section when the Secretary
determines that such a waiver is necessary because of a
contingency operation or when the Secretary otherwise considers
such a waiver to be necessary to meet military requirements.
The authority to make such a waiver may not be delegated to any
official of a military department other than the Secretary of
the military department and may not be delegated within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense to an official at a level
below Under Secretary of Defense.
(2) Whenever a waiver is granted under paragraph (1), the
Secretary of Defense shall promptly submit notice of the waiver
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
[(f )] (h) Veteran Defined.--In this section, the term
``veteran'' has the meaning given that term in section 101(2)
of title 38[.] and includes a deceased member or former member
of the Selected Reserve described in section 2301(f) of title
38.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 76--MISSING PERSONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1501. System for accounting for missing persons
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Primary Next of Kin.--The individual who is primary next
of kin of any person [prescribed] described in subsection (c)
may for purposes of this chapter designate another individual
to act on behalf of that individual as primary next of kin. The
Secretary concerned shall treat an individual so designated as
if the individual designated were the primary next of kin for
purposes of this chapter. A designation under this subsection
may be revoked at any time by the person who made the
designation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1509. Preenactment cases
(a) Review of Status.--(1) * * *
(2) For purposes of this subsection, new information is
information that is credible and that--
(A) is found or received after [the date of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998] November 18, 1997, by a United States
intelligence agency, by a Department of Defense agency,
or by a person specified in section 1504(g) of this
title; or
(B) is identified after [the date of the enactment of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1998] November 18, 1997, in records of the United
States as information that could be relevant to the
case of one or more unaccounted for persons described
in subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1513. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) The term ``missing person'' means--
(A) a member of the armed forces on active
duty who is in a missing status; or
(B) a civilian employee of the Department of
Defense or an employee of a contractor of the
Department of Defense who serves in direct
support of, or accompanies, the armed forces in
the field under orders and who is in a missing
status.
Such term includes an unaccounted for person described
in section 1509(b) of this title[, under the
circumstances specified in the last sentence of section
1509(a) of this title] who is required by section
1509(a)(1) of this title to be considered a missing
person.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 79--CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1555. Professional staff
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) In this section, the term ``service review agency''
means--
(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the
Army Review Boards Agency;
(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the
Navy Council of Personnel Boards and the Board for
Correction of Naval Records; and
(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force,
the Air Force Review Boards Agency.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 80--MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DUTIES
Sec.
1561. Complaints of sexual harassment: investigation by commanding
officers.
1562. Confidentiality of communications between dependents and
professionals providing therapeutic or related services
regarding sexual or domestic abuse.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1562. Confidentiality of communications between dependents and
professionals providing therapeutic or related
services regarding sexual or domestic abuse
(a) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in
regulations such policies and procedures as the Secretary
considers necessary to provide the maximum possible protection
for the confidentiality of communications described in
subsection (b) relating to misconduct described in that
subsection. Those regulations shall be consistent with--
(1) the standards of confidentiality and ethical
standards issued by relevant professional
organizations;
(2) applicable requirements of Federal and State law;
(3) the best interest of victims of sexual
harassment, sexual assault, or intrafamily abuse; and
(4) such other factors as the Secretary, in
consultation with the Attorney General, considers
appropriate.
(b) Covered Communications.--Subsection (a) applies to
communications between--
(1) a dependent of a member of the armed forces who--
(A) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual
assault, or intrafamily abuse; or
(B) has engaged in such misconduct; and
(2) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other
professional from whom the dependent seeks professional
services in connection with effects of such misconduct.
CHAPTER 81--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1588. Authority to accept certain voluntary services
(a) Authority To Accept Services.--Subject to subsection (b)
and notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Secretary
concerned may accept from any person the following services:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Voluntary services as a member of an honor guard
detail under section 1491 of this title.
* * * * * * *
(f) Authority To Install Equipment.--(1) The Secretary
concerned may install telephone lines and any necessary
telecommunication equipment in the private residences of
designated persons providing voluntary services accepted under
subsection (a)(3) and pay the charges incurred for the use of
the equipment for authorized purposes.
(2) Notwithstanding section 1348 of title 31, the Secretary
concerned may use appropriated or nonappropriated funds of the
military department under the jurisdiction of the Secretary or,
with respect to the Coast Guard, the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, to carry out this subsection.
(3) The Secretary of Defense and, with respect to the Coast
Guard, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating, shall prescribe regulations to carry out this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1595. Civilian faculty members at certain Department of Defense
schools: employment and compensation
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Covered Institutions.--This section applies with respect
to the following institutions of the Department of Defense:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) The African Center for Strategic Studies.
* * * * * * *
(e) Applicability to Director and Deputy Director at Certain
Institutions.--In addition to the persons specified in
subsection (a), this section also applies with respect to the
Director and the Deputy Director of the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The African Center for Strategic Studies.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 101--TRAINING GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2007. Payment of tuition for off-duty training or education
(a) The Secretary of a military department may not pay more
than 75 percent of the charges of an educational institution
for the tuition or expenses of a member of the armed forces
enrolled in such institution for education or training during
his off-duty periods, except that--
(1) * * *
(2) in the case of a member enrolled in a high school
completion program, all of the charges may be paid;
[and]
(3) in the case of a commissioned officer on active
duty, no part of the charges may be paid unless the
officer agrees to remain on active duty for a period of
at least two years after the completion of the training
or education[.]; and
(4) in the case of a member serving in a contingency
operation or similar operational mission (other than
for training) designated by the Secretary concerned,
all of the charges may be paid.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 102--JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
Sec.
2031. Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
2032. Responsibility of the Secretaries of the military departments to
maximize
enrollment and enhance efficiency.
2033. Contingent funding increase.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2033. Contingent funding increase
If for any fiscal year the amount appropriated for the
National Guard Challenge Program under section 509 of title 32
is in excess of $62,500,000, the Secretary of Defense shall
(notwithstanding any other provision of law) make the amount in
excess of $62,500,000 available for the Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps program under section 2031 of this
title, and such excess amount may not be used for any other
purpose.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 103--SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
Sec.
2101. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
2111a. Support for senior military colleges.
2111b. Senior military colleges: Department of Defense international
student program.
Sec. 2101. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The term ``advanced training'' means the training
and instruction offered in the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps to students enrolled in an advanced
education program beyond the baccalaureate degree level
or to students enrolled in an advanced education
program beyond the baccalaureate degree level or to
students in the third and fourth years of a four-year
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course, or the
equivalent period of training in an approved two-year
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course (except
that, in the case of a student enrolled in an academic
program which has been approved by the Secretary of the
military department concerned and which requires more
than four academic years for completion of
baccalaureate degree requirements, including elective
requirements of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps course, such term includes a fifth academic year
or a combination of a part of a fifth academic year and
summer sessions).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected members
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
[(2) The Secretary of Defense shall authorize the Secretaries
of the military departments to carry out a test program to
determine the desirability of enabling graduate students to
participate in the financial assistance program under this
section. As part of such test program, the Secretary of a
military department may provide financial assistance, as
described in paragraph (1), to a student enrolled in an
advanced education program beyond the baccalaureate degree
level if the student also is a cadet or midshipman in an
advanced training program. Not more than 15 percent of the
total number of scholarships awarded under this section in any
year may be awarded under the test program. No scholarship may
be awarded under the test program after September 30, 1999.]
(2) The Secretary concerned may provide financial assistance,
as described in paragraph (1), to a student enrolled in an
advanced education program beyond the baccalaureate degree
level if the student also is a cadet or midshipman in an
advanced training program. Not more than 15 percent of the
total number of scholarships awarded under this section in any
year may be awarded under the program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2111a. Support for senior military colleges
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Assignment to Active Duty.--(1) The Secretary of the Army
shall ensure that a graduate of a senior military college who
desires to serve as a commissioned officer on active duty upon
graduation from the college, who is medically and physically
qualified for active duty, and who is recommended for such duty
by the professor of military science at the college, shall be
assigned to active duty. [This paragraph shall apply to a
member of the program at a senior military college who
graduates from the college after March 31, 1997.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2111b. Senior military colleges: Department of Defense
international student program
(a) Program Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a program to facilitate the enrollment and
instruction of persons from foreign countries as international
students at the senior military colleges.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program shall be--
(1) to provide a high-quality, cost-effective
military-based educational experience for international
students in furtherance of the military-to-military
program objectives of the Department of Defense; and
(2) to enhance the educational experience and
preparation of future United States military leaders
through increased, extended interaction with highly
qualified potential foreign military leaders.
(c) Coordination with the Senior Military Colleges.--
Guidelines for implementation of the program shall be developed
in coordination with the senior military colleges.
(d) Recommendations for Admission of Students Under the
Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall annually identify to
the senior military colleges the international students who,
based on criteria established by the Secretary, the Secretary
recommends be considered for admission under the program. The
Secretary shall identify the recommended international students
to the senior military colleges as early as possible each year
to enable those colleges to consider them in a timely manner in
their respective admissions processes.
(e) DOD Financial Support.--An international student who is
admitted to a senior military college under the program under
this section is responsible for the cost of instruction at that
college. The Secretary of Defense may, from funds available to
the Department of Defense other than funds available for
financial assistance under section 2107a of this title, provide
some or all of the costs of instruction for any such student.
CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOLARSHIP AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2126. Members of the program: service credit
(a) * * *
(b) Service Creditable for Certain Purposes.--(1) * * *
(2) Service credited under paragraph (1) counts [only for the
following purposes:
[(A) Award of] only for the award of retirement
points for computation of years of service under
section 12732 of this title and for computation of
retired pay under section 12733 of this title.
[(B) Computation of years of service creditable under
section 205 of title 37.]
(3) For purposes of [paragraph (2)(A), a member] paragraph
(2), a member who completes a satisfactory year of service in
the Selected Reserve may be credited in accordance with
paragraph (1) with not more than 50 points for each year of
participation in a course of study that the member
satisfactorily completes as a member of the program.
(4) Service may not be counted under paragraph (1) for more
than four years of participation in a course of study as a
member of the program.
(5) A member of the Selected Reserve who is awarded
points or service credit under this subsection shall
not be considered to have been in an active status, by
reason of the award of the points or credit, while
pursuing a course of study under this subchapter for
purposes of any provision of law other than sections
12732(a) and 12733(3) of this title.
[(5)] (6) A member is not entitled to any retroactive award
of, or increase in, pay or allowances under title 37 by reason
of an award of service credit under paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates
(a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and
ending on December 31, [1999] 2000, executes a written
agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept an
appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned
at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first
installment may not exceed $2,500.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 108--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS
Sec.
2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: academic degrees.
* * * * * * *
2166. National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2164. Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and
secondary schools
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Eligibility of Dependents of Federal Employees.--(1) * *
*
* * * * * * *
[(3) A dependent of a Federal employee may continue
enrollment in a program under this subsection for the remainder
of a school year notwithstanding a change during such school
year in the status of the Federal employee that, except for
this paragraph, would otherwise terminate the eligibility of
the dependent to be enrolled in the program. The preceding
sentence does not limit the authority of the Secretary to
remove the dependent from enrollment in the program at any time
for good cause determined by the Secretary.]
* * * * * * *
(h) Continuation of Enrollment Despite Change in Status.--(1)
A dependent of a member of the armed forces or a dependent of a
Federal employee may continue enrollment in an educational
program provided by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to
subsection (a) for the remainder of a school year
notwithstanding a change during such school year in the status
of the member or Federal employee that, except for this
paragraph, would otherwise terminate the eligibility of the
dependent to be enrolled in the program.
(2) A dependent of a member of the armed forces, or a
dependent of a Federal employee, who was enrolled in an
educational program provided by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (a) while a junior in that program may be enrolled
as a senior in that program in the next school year,
notwithstanding a change in the enrollment eligibility status
of the dependent that, except for this paragraph, would
otherwise terminate the eligibility of the dependent to be
enrolled in the program.
(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not limit the authority of the
Secretary to remove a dependent from enrollment in an
educational program provided by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (a) at any time for good cause determined by the
Secretary.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2166. National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs
(a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Center'') as
part of the National Defense University. The Center shall be
organized as an independent institute under the University.
(2) The Director of the Center shall be appointed by the
Secretary of Defense. The Secretary shall appoint as the
Director an individual who is a distinguished scholar of proven
academic, management, and leadership credentials with a
superior record of achievement and publication regarding
Chinese political, strategic, and military affairs.
(b) Mission.--The mission of the Center is to study the
national goals and strategic posture of the People's Republic
of China and the ability of that nation to develop, field, and
deploy an effective military instrument in support of its
national strategic objectives.
(c) Areas of Study.--The Center shall conduct research
relating to the People's Republic of China as follows:
(1) To assess the potential of that nation to act as
a global great power, the Center shall conduct research
that considers the policies and capabilities of that
nation in a regional and world-wide context, including
Central Asia, Southwest Asia, Europe, and Latin
America, as well as the Asia-Pacific region.
(2) To provide a fuller assessment of the areas of
study referred to in paragraph (1), the Center shall
conduct research on--
(A) economic trends relative to strategic
goals and military capabilities;
(B) strengths and weaknesses in the
scientific and technological sector; and
(C) relevant demographic and human resource
factors on progress in the military sphere.
(3) The Center shall conduct research on the armed
forces of the People's Republic of China, taking into
account the character of those armed forces and their
role in Chinese society and economy, the degree of
their technological sophistication, and their
organizational and doctrinal concepts. That research
shall include inquiry into the following matters:
(A) Concepts concerning national interests,
objectives, and strategic culture.
(B) Grand strategy, military strategy,
military operations, and tactics.
(C) Doctrinal concepts at each of the four
levels specified in subparagraph (B).
(D) The impact of doctrine on China's force
structure choices.
(E) The interaction of doctrine and force
structure at each level to create an integrated
system of military capabilities through
procurement, officer education, training, and
practice and other similar factors.
(d) Faculty of the Center.--(1) The core faculty of the
Center should comprise scholars capable of providing diverse
perspectives on Chinese political, strategic, and military
thought. Center scholars shall demonstrate the following
competencies and capabilities:
(A) Analysis of national strategy, military strategy,
and doctrine.
(B) Analysis of force structure and military
capabilities.
(C) Analysis of--
(i) issues relating to weapons of mass
destruction, military intelligence, defense
economics, trade, and international economics;
and
(ii) the relationship between those issues
and grand strategy, science and technology, the
sociology of human resources and demography,
and political science.
(2) A substantial number of Center scholars shall be
competent in the Chinese language. The Center shall include a
core of junior scholars capable of providing linguistics and
translation support to the Center.
(e) Activities of the Center.--The activities of the Center
shall include other elements appropriate to its mission,
including the following:
(1) The Center should include an active conference
program with an international reach.
(2) The Center should conduct an international
competition for a Visiting Fellowship in Chinese
Military Affairs and Chinese Security Issues. The term
of the fellowship should be for one year, renewable for
a second.
(3) The Center shall provide funds to support at
least one trip per analyst per year to China and the
region and to support visits of Chinese military
leaders to the Center.
(4) The Center shall support well defined,
distinguished, signature publications.
(5) Center scholars shall have appropriate access to
intelligence community assessments of Chinese military
affairs.
(f) Studies and Reports.--The Director may contract for
studies and reports from the private sector to supplement the
work of the Center.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2208. Working-capital funds
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j) The Secretary of a military department may authorize a
working capital funded industrial facility of that department
to manufacture or remanufacture articles and sell these
articles, as well as manufacturing [or remanufacturing],
remanufacturing, and engineering services provided by such
facilities, to persons outside the Department of Defense if--
(1) the person purchasing the article or service is
fulfilling a Department of Defense contract or a
subcontract under a Department of Defense contract; and
(2) the [Department of Defense solicitation for such
contract] solicitation for the contract or subcontract
is open to competition between Department of Defense
activities and private firms.
(l)(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the notification
requirements of paragraph (1)--
(A) during a period of war or national emergency; or
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2212. Obligations for contract services: reporting in budget
object classes
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) * * *
(2) The term ``advisory and assistance services
object class'' means those contract services
constituting the budget object class that is
denominated ``Advisory and Assistance Service'' and
designated ([as of the date of the enactment of this
section] as of October 17, 1998) as Object Class 25.1
(or any similar object class established [after the
date of the enactment of this section] after October
17, 1998, for the reporting of obligations for advisory
and assistance contract services).
(3) The term ``miscellaneous services object class''
means those contract services constituting the budget
object class that is denominated ``Other Services
(services not otherwise specified in the 25 series)''
and designated ([as of the date of the enactment of
this section] as of October 17, 1998) as Object Class
25.2 (or any similar object class established [after
the date of the enactment of this section] after
October 17, 1998, for the reporting of obligations for
miscellaneous or unspecified contract services).
(4) The term ``authorized exemptions'' means those
exemptions authorized ([as of the date of the enactment
of this section] as of October 17, 1998) under
Department of Defense Directive 4205.2, captioned
``Acquiring and Managing Contracted Advisory and
Assistance Services (CAAS)'' and issued by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology on
February 10, 1992, such exemptions being set forth in
Enclosure 3 to that directive (captioned ``CAAS
Exemptions'').
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2218. National Defense Sealift Fund
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(k)(1) The Secretary of Defense, after making a determination
of economic soundness for any proposed offer, may provide
advance payments to a contractor by lump sum or annual payments
(or a combination thereof) for the following costs associated
with inclusion or incorporation of defense features in a
commercial vessel:
(A) Costs to build, procure, and install the defense
features in the vessel.
(B) Costs to periodically maintain and test the
defense features on the vessel.
(C) Any increased costs of operation or any loss of
revenue attributable to the inclusion or incorporation
of the defense feature on the vessel.
(D) Any additional costs associated with the terms
and conditions of the contract to install and
incorporate defense features.
(2) For any contract under which the United States provides
advance payments under paragraph (1) for the costs associated
with incorporation or inclusion of defense features in a
commercial vessel, the contractor shall provide to the United
States such security interests, which may include a preferred
mortgage under section 31322 of title 46, on the vessel as the
Secretary may prescribe to project the interests of the United
States relating to all costs associated with incorporation or
inclusion of defense features in such vessel or vessels.
(3) The functions of the Secretary under this subsection may
not be delegated to an officer or employee in a position below
the head of the procuring activity, as defined in section
2304(f)(6)(A) of this title.
[(k)] (l) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Fund'' means the National Defense
Sealift Fund established by subsection (a).
(2) The term ``Department of Defense sealift vessel''
means any ship owned, operated, controlled, or
chartered by the Department of Defense [that is--] that
is any of the following:
(A) [a] A fast sealift ship, including any
vessel in the Fast Sealift Program established
under section 1424 of Public Law 101-510 (104
Stat. 1683)[;].
(B) [a] A maritime prepositioning ship[;].
(C) [an] An afloat prepositioning ship[;].
(D) [an] An aviation maintenance support
ship[; or].
(E) [a] A hospital ship.
(F) A large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off
ship.
(G) A combat logistics force ship.
(H) Any other auxiliary support vessel.
(3) The term ``national defense sealift vessel''
means--
(A) a Department of Defense sealift vessel;
and
(B) a national defense reserve fleet vessel,
including a vessel in the Ready Reserve Force
maintained under section 11 of the Merchant
Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744).
(4) The term ``congressional defense committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on National Security and
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 136--PROVISIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS
Sec.
2281. Global Positioning System.
2282. Purchase or lease of communications services: limitation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2282. Purchase or lease of communications services: limitation
The Secretary of Defense may not obligate any funds after
September 30, 2000, to buy a commercial satellite
communications system or to lease a communications service,
including mobile satellite communications, unless the Secretary
determines that the system or service to be purchased or leased
has been proven through independent testing--
(1) not to cause harmful interference to, or to
disrupt the use of, colocated commercial or military
Global Positioning System receivers used by the
Department of Defense; and
(2) to be safe for use with such receivers in all
other respects.
CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2302c. Implementation of electronic commerce capability
(a) * * *
(b) Designation of Agency Official.--The head of each agency
named in paragraph (5) or (6) of section [2303] 2303(a) of this
title shall designate a program manager to implement the
electronic commerce capability for that agency. The program
manager shall report directly to an official at a level not
lower than the senior procurement executive designated for the
agency under section 16(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3)).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2325. Restructuring costs
(a) Limitation on Payment of Restructuring Costs.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense may not pay, under section 2324 of this
title, a defense contractor for restructuring costs associated
with a business combination of the contractor that occurs after
November 18, 1997, unless the Secretary determines in writing
either--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec.
2381. Contracts: regulations for bids.
* * * * * * *
[2404. Acquisition of petroleum and natural gas: authority to waive
contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales.]
authority
2404. Acquisition of certain fuel sources: authority to waive contract
procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales authority.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2404. Acquisition of petroleum and natural gas: authority to
waive contract procedures; acquisition by exchange;
sales authority]
Sec. 2404. Acquisition of certain fuel sources: authority to waive
contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales
authority
(a) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may, for any
purchase of [petroleum or natural gas] a defined fuel source,
waive the application of any provision of law prescribing
procedures to be followed in the formation of contracts,
prescribing terms and conditions to be included in contracts,
or regulating the performance of contracts if the Secretary
determines--
(1) that [petroleum market conditions or natural gas
market conditions, as the case may be,] market
conditions for the defined fuel source have adversely
affected (or will in the near future adversely affect)
the [acquisition of petroleum or acquisition of natural
gas, respectively,] acquisition of that defined fuel
source by the Department of Defense; and
(2) the waiver will expedite or facilitate the
acquisition of [petroleum or natural gas, as the case
may be,] that defined fuel source for Government needs.
(b) Scope of Waiver.--A waiver under subsection (a) may be
made with respect to a particular contract or with respect to
classes of contracts. Such a waiver that is applicable to a
contract for the purchase of [petroleum or natural gas] a
defined fuel source may also be made applicable to a
subcontract under that contract.
(c) Exchange Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may acquire
[petroleum, petroleum-related services, natural gas, or natural
gas-related services by exchange of petroleum, petroleum-
related services, natural gas, or natural gas-related
services.] a defined fuel source or services related to a
defined fuel source by exchange of a defined fuel source or
services related to a defined fuel source.
(d) Authority To Sell.--The Secretary of Defense may sell
[petroleum or natural gas] a defined fuel source of the
Department of Defense if the Secretary determines that the sale
would be in the public interest. The proceeds of such a sale
shall be credited to appropriations of the Department of
Defense for the acquisition of [petroleum, petroleum-related
services, natural gas, or natural gas-related services. Amounts
so credited shall be available for obligation for the same
period as the appropriations to which the amounts are
credited.] a defined fuel source or services related to a
defined fuel source.
* * * * * * *
(f) Defined Fuel Sources.--In this section, the term
``defined fuel source'' means any of the following:
(1) Petroleum.
(2) Natural gas.
(3) Coal.
(4) Coke.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2410d. Subcontracting plans: credit for certain purchases
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall cease to be effective
at the end of September 30, 1999.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS
Sec.
2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.
* * * * * * *
[2467. Cost comparisons: requirements with respect to retirement costs
and consultation with employees.]
2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation
with employees; waiver of comparison.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies
and reports before conversion to contractor
performance
(a) * * *
(b) Notification and Elements of Analysis.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) An analysis of a commercial or industrial type function
for possible change to performance by the private sector shall
include the following:
(A) * * *
(B) An examination of the potential economic effect
of performance of the function by the private sector on
the following:
(i) Employees of the Department of Defense
who would be affected by such a change in
performance.
[(ii) The local community and the Government,
if more than 75 employees of the Department of
Defense perform the function.]
(ii) The local community and the local
economy, identifying and taking into
consideration any unique circumstances
affecting the local community or the local
economy, if more than 50 employees of the
Department of Defense perform the function.
* * * * * * *
(g) Annual Reports.--(1) Not later than February 1 of each
fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress
a written report describing the extent to which commercial and
industrial type functions were performed by Department of
Defense contractors during the preceding fiscal year. [The
Secretary shall]
(2) The Secretary shall include in each such report a summary
of the number of work year equivalents performed by employees
of private contractors in providing services to the Department
(including both direct and indirect labor attributable to the
provision of the services) and the total value of the
contracted services. The work year equivalents and total value
of the services shall be categorized by Federal supply class or
service code (using the first character of the code), the
appropriation from which the services were funded, and the
major organizational element of the Department procuring the
services.
(3) The Secretary shall also include in each such report an
estimate of the percentage of commercial and industrial type
functions of the Department of Defense that will be performed
by Department of Defense civilian employees, and the percentage
of such functions that will be performed by private
contractors, during the fiscal year during which the report is
submitted.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2466. Limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance of
materiel
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Report.--(1) Not later than February 1 of each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
identifying, for each military department and Defense Agency,
the percentage of the funds referred to in subsection (a) that
were expended during the preceding fiscal year for performance
of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the public
and private sectors as required by section 2466 of this title.
[(2) Not later than 90 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits the annual report under paragraph (1), the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the Comptroller
General's views on whether the Department of Defense has
complied with the requirements of subsection (a) for the fiscal
year covered by the report.]
(e) Annual Reports.--(1) Not later than February 1 of each
year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report identifying, for each of the armed forces (other than
the Coast Guard) and each Defense Agency, the percentage of the
funds referred to in subsection (a) that were expended during
the preceding two fiscal years for performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair workloads by the public and private
sectors, as required by this section.
(2) Not later than April 1 of each year, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report identifying, for each
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) and each
Defense Agency, the percentage of the funds referred to in
subsection (a) that are projected to be expended during each of
the next five fiscal years for performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair workloads by the public and private
sectors, as required by this section.
(3) Not later than 60 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits a report under this subsection, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the Comptroller
General's views on whether--
(A) in the case of a report under paragraph (1), the
Department of Defense has complied with the
requirements of subsection (a) for the fiscal years
covered by the report; and
(B) in the case of a report under paragraph (2), the
expenditure projections for future fiscal years are
reasonable.
[Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: requirements with respect to retirement
costs and consultation with employees]
Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs;
consultation with employees; waiver of comparison
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Congressional Notification of Cost Comparison Waiver.--
(1) Not later than 10 days after a decision is made to waive
the cost comparison study otherwise required under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 as part of the process to
convert to contractor performance any commercial activity of
the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report describing the commercial activity
subject to the waiver and the rationale for the waiver.
(2) The report shall also include the following:
(A) The total number of civilian employees or
military personnel adversely affected by the decision
to waive the cost comparison study and convert the
commercial activity to contractor performance.
(B) An explanation of whether the contractor was
selected, or will be selected, on a competitive basis
or sole source basis.
(C) The anticipated savings to result from the waiver
and resulting conversion to contractor performance.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2469. Contracts to perform workloads previously performed by
depot-level activities of the Department of
Defense: requirement of competition
(a) * * *
(b) Scope.--Subsection (a) applies to any depot-level
maintenance and repair workload that has a value of not less
than $3,000,000 (including the cost of labor and materials) and
is being performed by a depot-level activity of the Department
of Defense.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2469a. Use of competitive procedures in contracting for
performance of depot-level maintenance and repair
workloads formerly performed at certain military
installations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply with respect
to--
(1) a depot-level maintenance and repair workload
that is to be consolidated to another military
installation (other than a closed or realigned military
installation) as a result of a base closure or
realignment action or a decision made by the Secretary
concerned or the Defense Depot Maintenance Council;
(2) a workload necessary to maintain a core logistics
capability identified under section 2464 of this title;
or
(3) any contract originally entered into before [the
date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998] November 18,
1997.
* * * * * * *
(i) Oversight of Contracts Awarded Public Entities.--The
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned may not impose
on a public sector entity awarded a contract for the
performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair workload
described in subsection (b) any requirements regarding
management systems, reviews, oversight, or reporting different
from the requirements used in the performance and management of
other depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the
entity, unless specifically provided in the solicitation for
the contract.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2473. Procurements from the small arms production industrial base
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Applicability.--This section applies only to procurements
of covered property and services involving the following small
arms:
(1) M16 series rifle.
(2) MK19 grenade machine gun.
(3) M4 series carbine.
(4) M240 series machine gun.
(5) M249 squad automatic weapon.
(6) M2 machine gun.
(7) M60 machine gun.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND
RECREATION ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold; uniform
surcharges and pricing
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Uniform Sales Price Surcharge or Adjustment.--An
adjustment of or surcharge on sales prices in commissary stores
under section 2484(b) or 2685(a) of this title or for any other
purpose shall be applied as a uniform percentage of the sales
price of all merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores.
Effective on [the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998,] November 18, 1997, the
uniform percentage shall be equal to five percent and may not
be changed except by a law enacted after such date.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2492. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access and purchase
restrictions
(a) * * *
(b) Controlled Item Lists.--For each location outside the
United States that is served by the commissary system or the
exchange system, the Secretary of Defense may maintain a list
of controlled merchandise items, except that, after [the date
of the enactment of this section] October 17, 1998, the
Secretary may not change the list to add a merchandise item
unless, before making the change, the Secretary submits to
Congress a notice of the proposed addition and the reasons for
the addition of the item.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2525. Manufacturing Technology Program
(a) * * *
(b) Purpose of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall use
the program--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) to address broad defense-related manufacturing
inefficiencies and requirements;
[(4)] (5) to promote dual-use manufacturing
processes;
[(5)] (6) to disseminate information concerning
improved manufacturing improvement concepts, including
information on such matters as best manufacturing
practices, product data exchange specifications,
computer-aided acquisition and logistics support, and
rapid acquisition of manufactured parts;
[(6)] (7) to sustain and enhance the skills and
capabilities of the manufacturing work force;
[(7)] (8) to promote high-performance work systems
(with development and dissemination of production
technologies that build upon the skills and
capabilities of the work force), high levels of worker
education and training; and
[(8)] (9) to ensure appropriate coordination between
the manufacturing technology programs and industrial
preparedness programs of the Department of Defense and
similar programs undertaken by other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government or by the private
sector.
* * * * * * *
(d) Competition and Cost Sharing.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) As a goal, at least 25 percent of the funds available
for the program each fiscal year should be used for awarding
grants and entering into contracts, cooperative agreements, and
other transactions on a cost-share basis under which the ratio
of recipient cost to Government cost is two to one. The
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of
the military departments and upon recommendation of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, shall
establish annual objectives to meet such goal.]
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2539b. Availability of samples, drawings, information, equipment,
materials, and certain services
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense and the
[secretaries] Secretaries of the military departments, under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense and when
determined by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary
concerned to be in the interest of national defense, may each--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 152--ISSUE OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2553. Articles and services of industrial facilities: sale to
persons outside the Department of Defense
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) * * *
(2) The term ``not available'', with respect to an
article or service proposed to be sold under this
section, means that the article or service is
unavailable from a commercial source in the required
quantity and quality, within the time required, or at
prices less than the price available through an
industrial facility of the armed forces.
[(2)] (3) The term ``variable costs'', with respect
to sales of articles or services, means the costs that
are expected to fluctuate directly with the volume of
sales and--
(A) in the case of articles, the volume of
production necessary to satisfy the sales
orders; or
(B) in the case of services, the extent of
the services sold.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2641a. Transportation of American Samoa veterans on Department of
Defense aircraft for certain medical care in Hawaii
(a) * * *
(b) Veterans Eligible for Transport.--A veteran eligible for
transport under subsection (a) is any veteran who--
(1) resides in and is located in American Samoa; and
(2) as determined by an official of the Department of
Veterans Affairs designated for that purpose by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, must be transported to
the State of Hawaii in order to receive hospital care
to which such veteran is entitled under chapter 17 of
title 38[, United States Code,] in facilities of such
Department in the State of Hawaii.
* * * * * * *
[(d) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) The term ``veteran'' has the meaning given that
term in section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code.
[(2) The term ``hospital care'' has the meaning given
that term in section 1701(5) of title 38, United States
Code.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF
NONEXCESS PROPERTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2680. Leases: land for special operations activities
(a) * * *
(d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
of Defense to acquire a leasehold interest in real property
under this section shall expire on September 30, [2000] 2005.
The expiration of that authority shall not affect the validity
of any contract entered into under this section on or before
that date.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2688. Utility systems: conveyance authority
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Consideration.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) A contract for the receipt of utility services as
consideration under paragraph (1), or any other contract for
utility services entered into by the Secretary concerned in
connection with the conveyance of a utility system under this
section, may be for a period not to exceed 50 years.
* * * * * * *
(g) Assistance for Construction, Repair, or Replacement of
Utility Systems.--In lieu of carrying out a military
construction project to construct, repair, or replace a utility
system, the Secretary concerned may use funds authorized and
appropriated for the project to facilitate the conveyance of
the utility system under this section by making a contribution
toward the cost of construction, repair, or replacement of the
utility system by the entity to which the utility system is
being conveyed. The Secretary concerned shall consider any such
contribution in the economic analysis required under subsection
(e).
[(g)] (i) Utility System Defined.--(1) In this section, the
term ``utility system'' means any of the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) The term ``utility system'' includes the following:
(A) Equipment, fixtures, structures, and other
improvements utilized in connection with a system
referred to in paragraph (1).
(B) [Easements] Real property, easements, and rights-
of-way associated with a system referred to in that
paragraph.
[(h)] (j) Limitation.--This section shall not apply to
projects constructed or operated by the Army Corps of Engineers
under its civil works authorities.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2692. Storage, treatment, and disposal of nondefense toxic and
hazardous materials
(a) * * *
(b) Subsection (a) does not [apply to--] apply to the
following:
(1) [the] The storage, treatment, or disposal of
materials that will be or have been used in connection
with an activity of the Department of Defense or in
connection with a service to be performed on an
installation of the Department for the benefit of the
Department[;].
(2) [the] The storage of strategic and critical
materials in the National Defense Stockpile under an
agreement for such storage with the Administrator of
General Services[;].
(3) [the] The temporary storage or disposal of
explosives in order to protect the public or to assist
agencies responsible for Federal, State, or local law
enforcement in storing or disposing of explosives when
no alternative solution is available, if such storage
or disposal is made in accordance with an agreement
between the Secretary of Defense and the head of the
Federal, State, or local agency concerned[;].
(4) [the] The temporary storage or disposal of
explosives in order to provide emergency lifesaving
assistance to civil authorities[;].
(5) [the] The disposal of excess explosives produced
under a Department of Defense contract, if the head of
the military department concerned determines, in each
case, that an alternative feasible means of disposal is
not available to the contractor, taking into
consideration public safety, available resources of the
contractor, and national defense production
requirements[;].
(6) [the] The temporary storage of nuclear materials
or non-nuclear classified materials in accordance with
an agreement with the Secretary of Energy[;].
(7) [the] The storage of materials that constitute
military resources intended to be used during peacetime
civil emergencies in accordance with applicable
Department of Defense regulations[;].
(8) [the] The temporary storage of materials of other
Federal agencies in order to provide assistance and
refuge for commercial carriers of such material during
a transportation emergency[;].
(9) [the] The storage of any material that is not
owned by the Department of Defense if the Secretary of
the military department concerned determines that the
material is required or generated in connection with
the authorized and compatible use of a facility of the
Department of Defense, including the use of such a
facility for testing materiel or training personnel[;].
(10) [the] The treatment and disposal of any material
that is not owned by the Department of Defense if the
Secretary of the military department concerned
determines that the material is required or generated
in connection with the authorized and compatible use of
a facility of that military department and the
Secretary enters into a contract or agreement with the
prospective user that--
(A) is consistent with the best interest of
national defense and environmental security;
and
(B) provides for the prospective user's
continued financial and environmental
responsibility and liability with regard to the
material[; and].
(11) [the] The storage of any material that is not
owned by the Department of Defense if the Secretary of
the military department concerned determines that the
material is required or generated in connection with
the use of a space launch facility located on an
installation of the Department of Defense or on other
land controlled by the United States.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses
relating to certain real property transactions
(a) * * *
(b) Covered Transactions.--Subsection (a) applies to the
following transactions involving real property under the
control of the Secretary of a military department:
(1) The exchange of real property.
(2) The grant of an easement over, in, or upon real
property of the United States.
(3) The lease or license of real property of the
United States.
(4) The disposal of real property of the United
States for which the Secretary will be the disposal
agent.
Sec. 2696. Screening of real property for further Federal use before
conveyance
(a) Screening Requirement.--The Secretary concerned may not
convey real property that is authorized or required to be
conveyed, whether for or without consideration, by any
provision of law enacted after December 31, 1997, unless the
Administrator of General Services has screened the property for
further Federal use in accordance with the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
(b) Time for Screening.--(1) Before the end of the 30-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of a provision of
law authorizing or requiring the conveyance of a parcel of real
property by the Secretary concerned, the Administrator of
General Services shall complete the screening [required by
paragraph (1)] referred to in subsection (a) with regard to the
real property and notify the Secretary concerned of the results
of the screening. The notice shall include--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Excepted Conveyance Authorities.--The screening
requirements of this section shall not apply to real property
authorized or required to be conveyed under any of the
following provisions of law:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Any provision of law authorizing the closure or
realignment of a military installation that is enacted
after [the date of enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998] November 18,
1997.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 160--ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2703. Environmental restoration accounts
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Budget Reports.--In proposing the budget for any fiscal
year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, [United States
Code,] the President shall set forth separately the amounts
requested for environmental restoration programs of the
Department of Defense and of each of the military departments
under this chapter and under any other Act.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Sec.
2801. Scope of chapter; definitions.
* * * * * * *
2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island, Hawaii.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organizations
Security Investment
(a) Within amounts authorized by law for such purpose, the
Secretary of Defense may make contributions for the United
States share of the cost of multilateral programs for the
acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area, including support for the actual
implementation of a military operations plan approved by the
North Atlantic Council.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island, Hawaii
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
of the Navy may exercise any authority or combination of
authorities in this section for the purpose of developing or
facilitating the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, to the
extent that the Secretary determines the development is
compatible with the mission of the Navy.
(2) The Secretary of the Navy may not exercise any authority
under this section until--
(A) the Secretary submits to the appropriate
committees of Congress a master plan for the
development of Ford Island, Hawaii; and
(B) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed
following the date on which the notification is
received by those committees.
(b) Conveyance Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may
convey to any public or private person or entity all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to any real
property (including any improvements thereon) or personal
property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in the State
of Hawaii that the Secretary determines--
(A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the
other armed forces; and
(B) will promote the purpose of this section.
(2) A conveyance under this subsection may include such terms
and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate to
protect the interests of the United States.
(c) Lease Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may lease
to any public or private person or entity any real property or
personal property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in
the State of Hawaii that the Secretary determines--
(A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the
other armed forces; and
(B) will promote the purpose of this section.
(2) A lease under this subsection shall be subject to section
2667(b)(1) of this title and may include such others terms as
the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
(3) A lease of real property under this subsection may
provide that, upon termination of the lease term, the lessee
shall have the right of first refusal to acquire the real
property covered by the lease if the property is then conveyed
under subsection (b).
(4)(A) The Secretary may provide property support services to
or for real property leased under this subsection.
(B) To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, any
payment made to the Secretary for services provided under this
paragraph shall be credited to the appropriation, account, or
fund from which the cost of providing the services was paid.
(d) Acquisition of Leasehold Interest by Secretary.--(1) The
Secretary of the Navy may acquire a leasehold interest in any
facility constructed under subsection (f) as consideration for
a transaction authorized by this section upon such terms as the
Secretary considers appropriate to promote the purpose of this
section.
(2) The term of a lease under paragraph (1) may not exceed 10
years, unless the Secretary of Defense approves a term in
excess of 10 years for purposes of this section.
(3) A lease under this subsection may provide that, upon
termination of the lease term, the United States shall have the
right of first refusal to acquire the facility covered by the
lease.
(4) The Secretary of the Navy may enter into a lease under
this subsection only if the lease is specifically authorized by
a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this section.
(e) Requirement for Competition.--The Secretary of the Navy
shall use competitive procedures for purposes of selecting the
recipient of real or personal property under subsection (b) and
the lessee of real or personal property under subsection (c).
(f) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance
of real or personal property under subsection (b), or for the
lease of real or personal property under subsection (c), the
Secretary of the Navy shall accept cash, real property,
personal property, or services, or any combination thereof, in
an aggregate amount equal to not less than the fair market
value of the real or personal property conveyed or leased.
(2) Subject to subsection (i), the services accepted by the
Secretary under paragraph (1) may include the following:
(A) The construction or improvement of facilities at
Ford Island.
(B) The restoration or rehabilitation of real
property at Ford Island.
(C) The provision of property support services for
property or facilities at Ford Island.
(g) Notice and Wait Requirements.--The Secretary of the Navy
may not carry out a transaction authorized by this section
until--
(1) the Secretary submits to the appropriate
committees of Congress a notification of the
transaction, including--
(A) a detailed description of the
transaction; and
(B) a justification for the transaction
specifying the manner in which the transaction
will meet the purposes of this section; and
(2) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed
following the date on which the notification is
received by those committees.
(h) Ford Island Improvement Account.--(1) There is
established on the books of the Treasury an account to be known
as the ``Ford Island Improvement Account''.
(2) There shall be deposited into the account the following
amounts:
(A) Amounts authorized and appropriated to the
account.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (c)(4)(B), the
amount of any cash payment received by the Secretary
for a transaction under this section.
(i) Use of Account.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), to the
extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts, funds in the
Ford Island Improvement Account may be used as follows:
(A) To carry out or facilitate the carrying out of a
transaction authorized by this section.
(B) To carry out improvements of property or
facilities at Ford Island.
(C) To obtain property support services for property
or facilities at Ford Island.
(2) To extent that the authorities provided under subchapter
IV of this chapter are available to the Secretary of the Navy,
the Secretary may not use the authorities in this section to
acquire, construct, or improve family housing units, military
unaccompanied housing units, or ancillary supporting facilities
related to military housing.
(3)(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford Island
Improvement Account to the following funds:
(i) The Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of
this title.
(ii) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund established by section
2883(a)(2) of this title.
(B) Amounts transferred under subparagraph (A) to a fund
referred to in that subparagraph shall be available in
accordance with the provisions of section 2883 of this title
for activities authorized under subchapter IV of this chapter
at Ford Island.
(j) Inapplicability of Certain Property Management Laws.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, transactions
under this section shall not be subject to the following:
(1) Sections 2667 and 2696 of this title.
(2) Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411).
(3) Sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483,
484).
(k) Scoring.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
waive the applicability to any lease entered into under this
section of the budget scorekeeping guidelines used to measure
compliance with the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
(l) Property Support Service Defined.--In this section, the
term ``property support service'' means the following:
(1) Any utility service or other service listed in
section 2686(a) of this title.
(2) Any other service determined by the Secretary to
be a service that supports the operation and
maintenance of real property, personal property, or
facilities.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2837. Limited partnerships with private developers of housing
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Account.--(1) There is hereby established on the books of
the Treasury an account to be known as the ``Defense Housing
Investment Account''.
(2) There shall be deposited into the Account--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) any unobligated balances which remain in the Navy
Housing Investment Account as of the date of the
enactment of [the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996] this section.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
MILITARY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec.
2871. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
[2875. Investments in nongovernmental entities.]
2875. Investments.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2871. Definitions
In this subchapter:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The term ``eligible entity'' means any
individual, corporation, firm, partnership, company,
State or local government, or housing authority of a
State or local government.
[(5)] (6) The term ``Fund'' means the Department of
Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund established under section 2883(a) of
this title.
[(6)] (7) The term ``military unaccompanied housing''
means military housing intended to be occupied by
members of the armed forces serving a tour of duty
unaccompanied by dependents.
[(7)] (8) The term ``United States'' includes the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Sec. 2872. General authority
In addition to any other authority provided under this
chapter for the acquisition or construction of military family
housing or military unaccompanied housing, the Secretary
concerned may exercise any authority or any combination of
authorities provided under this subchapter in order to provide
for the acquisition or construction by [private persons]
eligible entities of the following:
(1) Family housing units on or near military
installations within the United States and its
territories and possessions.
(2) Military unaccompanied housing units on or near
such military installations.
Sec. 2873. Direct loans and loan guarantees
(a) Direct Loans.--(1) Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary concerned may make direct loans to [persons in the
private sector] an eligible entity in order to provide funds to
[such persons] the eligible entity for the acquisition or
construction of housing units that the Secretary determines are
suitable for use as military family housing or as military
unaccompanied housing.
(2) The Secretary concerned shall establish such terms and
conditions with respect to loans made under this subsection as
the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States, including the period and frequency for
repayment of such loans and the obligations of the obligors on
such loans upon default.
(b) Loan Guarantees.--(1) Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary concerned may guarantee a loan made to [any person in
the private sector] an eligible entity if the proceeds of the
loan are to be used by [the person] the eligible entity to
acquire, or construct housing units that the Secretary
determines are suitable for use as military family housing or
as military unaccompanied housing.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2875. Investments in nongovernmental entities]
Sec. 2875. Investments
(a) Investments Authorized.--The Secretary concerned may make
investments in [nongovernmental entities] an eligible entity
carrying out projects for the acquisition or construction of
housing units suitable for use as military family housing or as
military unaccompanied housing.
* * * * * * *
(c) Limitation on Value of Investment.--(1) The cash amount
of an investment under this section in [a nongovernmental
entity] an eligible entity may not exceed an amount equal to
33\1/3\ percent of the capital cost (as determined by the
Secretary concerned) of the project or projects that [the
entity] the eligible entity proposes to carry out under this
section with the investment.
(2) If the Secretary concerned conveys land or facilities to
[a nongovernmental entity] an eligible entity as all or part of
an investment in [the entity] the eligible entity under this
section, the total value of the investment by the Secretary
under this section may not exceed an amount equal to 45 percent
of the capital cost (as determined by the Secretary) of the
project or projects that [the entity] the eligible entity
proposes to carry out under this section with the investment.
(3) In this subsection, the term ``capital cost'', with
respect to a project for the acquisition or construction of
housing, means the total amount of the costs included in the
basis of the housing for Federal income tax purposes.
(d) Collateral Incentive Agreements.--The Secretary concerned
shall enter into collateral incentive agreements with
[nongovernmental] eligible entities in which the Secretary
makes an investment under this section to ensure that a
suitable preference will be afforded members of the armed
forces and their dependents in the lease or purchase, as the
case may be, of a reasonable number of the housing units
covered by the investment.
(e) Congressional Notification Required.--Amounts in the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund may be used to make a cash investment under
this section in [a nongovernmental entity] an eligible entity
only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date
the Secretary of Defense submits written notice of, and
justification for, the investment to the appropriate committees
of Congress.
Sec. 2876. Rental guarantees
The Secretary concerned may enter into agreements with
[private persons] eligible entities that acquire or construct
military family housing units or military unaccompanied housing
units under this subchapter in order to assure--
(1) the occupancy of such units at levels specified
in the agreements; or
(2) rental income derived from rental of such units
at levels specified in the agreements.
Sec. 2877. Differential lease payments
Pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Secretary
concerned and a [private] lessor of military family housing or
military unaccompanied housing to members of the armed forces,
the Secretary may pay the lessor an amount in addition to the
rental payments for the housing made by the members as the
Secretary determines appropriate to encourage the lessor to
make the housing available to members of the armed forces as
military family housing or as military unaccompanied housing.
Sec. 2878. Conveyance or lease of existing property and facilities
(a) Conveyance or Lease Authorized.--The Secretary concerned
may convey or lease property or facilities (including ancillary
supporting facilities) to [private persons] eligible entities
for purposes of using the proceeds of such conveyance or lease
to carry out activities under this subchapter.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2881. Ancillary supporting facilities
(a) Authority To Acquire or Construct.--Any project for the
acquisition or construction of military family housing units or
military unaccompanied housing units under this subchapter may
include the acquisition or construction of ancillary supporting
facilities for the housing units concerned.
(b) Restriction.--The ancillary supporting facilities
authorized by subsection (a) may not be in direct competition
with any resale activities provided by the Defense Commissary
Agency or the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Navy
Exchange Service Command, Marine Corps exchanges, or any other
nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States under
the jurisdiction of the armed forces which is conducted for the
morale, welfare and recreation of members of the armed forces.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2883. Department of Defense Housing Funds
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Credits to Funds.--(1) There shall be credited to the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund the
following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers to
that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject
to the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts
specified in that section.
(2) There shall be credited to the Department of Defense
Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers to
that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject
to the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts
specified in that section.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Army
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 353--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3681. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement
(a) * * *
(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not
eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if
the member has previously been presented a flag [under this
section or section 6141 or 8681 of this title or section 516 of
title 14.] under this section or any other provision of law
providing for the presentation of a United States flag incident
to release from active service for retirement.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 401--TRAINING GENERALLY
Sec.
4301. Members of Army: detail as students, observers, and investigators
at educational institutions, industrial plants, and hospitals.
* * * * * * *
4320. Recruit basic training: privacy.
4321. United States Army War College: master of strategic studies
degree.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4321. United States Army War College: master of strategic studies
degree
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army,
the Commandant of the United States Army War College, upon the
recommendation of the faculty and dean of the college, may
confer the degree of master of strategic studies upon graduates
of the college who have fulfilled the requirements for that
degree.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4335. Dean of Academic Board
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) While serving as Dean of the Academic Board, an officer
of the Army who holds a grade lower than brigadier general
shall hold the grade of brigadier general, if appointed to that
grade by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The retirement age of an officer so appointed is
that of a permanent professor of the Academy. An officer so
appointed is counted for purposes of the limitation in section
526(a) of this title on general officers of the Army on active
duty.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution
(a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the
Academy [is as follows:] (determined for any year as of the day
before the last day of the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to
that limitation, cadets are selected as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the
last day of an academic year is graduation day.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4344. Selection of persons from foreign countries
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)
may not exceed [35] 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than [five] 20
persons receiving instruction at the Academy under this section
at any one time.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 561--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6141. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement
(a) * * *
(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not
eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if
the member has previously been presented a flag [under this
section or section 3681 or 8681 of this title or section 516 of
title 14.] under this section or any other provision of law
providing for the presentation of a United States flag incident
to release from active service for retirement.
* * * * * * *
PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec.
6951. Location.
* * * * * * *
[6974. Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of museum.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6954. Midshipmen: number
[(a) There may be at the Naval Academy at any one time
midshipmen as follows:]
(a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen
(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of
the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to that limitation,
midshipmen are selected as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the
last day of an academic year is graduation day.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6957. Selection of persons from foreign countries
(a) * * *
(b)(1) A person receiving instruction under this section is
entitled to the pay, allowances, and emoluments of a midshipman
appointed from the United States, and from the same
appropriations.
* * * * * * *
(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)
may not exceed [35] 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than [five] 20
persons receiving instruction at the Naval Academy under this
section at any one time.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6973. Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of Naval Academy
[(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, administer,
and spend gifts and bequests of personal property made on the
condition that it be used for the benefit of, or for use in
connection with, the Naval Academy. Gifts and bequests of money
and the proceeds from the sales of property received as gifts
shall be deposited in the Treasury in the fund called ``United
States Naval Academy general gift fund''. The Secretary may
disburse funds deposited under this subsection for the benefit
or use of the Naval Academy subject to the terms of the gift or
bequest.]
(a)(1) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold,
administer, and spend gifts and bequests of personal property,
and loans of personal property other than money, made on the
condition that the personal property be used for the benefit
of, or in connection with, the Naval Academy or the Naval
Academy Museum, its collection, or its services.
(2) Gifts or bequests of money, and the proceeds from the
sales of property received as a gift or bequest, shall be
deposited in the Treasury in the fund called ``United States
Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund''. The Secretary may
disburse funds deposited under this paragraph for the benefit
or use of the Naval Academy or the Naval Academy Museum subject
to the terms of the gift or bequest.
* * * * * * *
(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of the Treasury may invest, reinvest, or retain
investments of money or securities comprising any part of the
[United States Naval Academy general gift fund] United States
Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund in securities of the United
States or in securities guaranteed as to principal and interest
by the United States. The interest and benefits accruing from
those securities shall be deposited to the credit of the
[United States Naval Academy general gift fund] United States
Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund and may be disbursed as
provided in this section.
(d) The Secretary shall develop written guidelines to be used
in determining whether the acceptance of money, personal
property, or loans of personal property under subsection (a)
would--
(1) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of the
Department of the Navy to carry out its
responsibilities in a fair and objective manner;
(2) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of any
employee of the Department of the Navy to carry out the
employee's official duties in a fair and objective
manner; or
(3) compromise the integrity, or the appearance of
the integrity, of Navy programs or any employee
involved in such programs.
[Sec. 6974. Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of museum
[(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, administer,
and spend gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans of
personal property other than money, for the benefit of the
Naval Academy Museum, its collection, or its services. Gifts or
bequests of money shall be deposited in the Treasury in the
fund called ``United States Naval Academy Museum Fund''. The
Secretary may disburse funds so deposited for the purposes
specified in this section.
[(b) For the purpose of Federal income, estate, and gift
taxes, property that is accepted under this section is
considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United
States.
[(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of the Treasury may invest, reinvest, or retain
investments of the money or securities comprising any part of
the United States Naval Academy Museum Fund in securities of
the United States or in securities guaranteed as to principal
and interest by the United States. The interest and benefits
accruing from those securities shall be deposited to the credit
of the United States Naval Academy Museum Fund and may be
disbursed as provided in this section.]
* * * * * * *
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 631--SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: MISCELLANEOUS POWERS AND DUTIES
Sec.
7204. Schools near naval activities: financial aid.
* * * * * * *
[7222. Naval Historical Center Fund.]
* * * * * * *
7233. Auxiliary vessels: extended lease authority.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 7222. Naval Historical Center Fund
[(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, and
administer gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans
of personal property other than money, for the benefit of the
Naval Historical Center, its collection, or its services. Gifts
or bequests of money shall be deposited in the Treasury in a
trust fund called ``Naval Historical Center Fund.''
[(b) For the purpose of Federal income, estate, and gift
taxes, property that is accepted under this section is
considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United
States.
[(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of the Treasury may invest or reinvest all or any
part of the funds deposited under this section in securities of
the United States or in securities guaranteed by the United
States. The interest accruing from these securities shall be
deposited to the credit of the Naval Historical Center Fund.]
Sec. 7233. Auxiliary vessels: extended lease authority
(a) Authorized Contracts.--After September 30, 1999, the
Secretary of the Navy, subject to subsection (b), may enter
into contracts with private United States shipyards for the
construction of new surface vessels to be long-term leased by
the United States from the shipyard or other private person for
any of the following:
(1) The combat logistics force of the Navy.
(2) The strategic sealift force of the Navy.
(3) Other auxiliary support vessels for the
Department of Defense.
(b) Contracts Required To Be Authorized by Law.--A contract
may be entered into under subsection (a) with respect to a
specific vessel only if the Secretary is specifically
authorized by law to enter into such a contract with respect to
that vessel.
(c) Funds for Contract Payments.--The Secretary may make
payments for contracts entered into under subsection (a) and
under subsection (g) using funds available for obligation from
operation and maintenance accounts during the fiscal year for
which the payments are required to be made. Any such contract
shall provide that the United States is not required to make a
payment under the contract (other than a termination payment,
if required) before October 1, 2001.
(d) Term of Contract.--In this section, the term ``long-term
lease'' means a lease, bareboat charter, or conditional sale
agreement with respect to a vessel the term of which (including
any option period) is for a period of 20 years or more.
(e) Option To Buy.--A contract entered into under subsection
(a) may include options for the United States to purchase one
or more of the vessels covered by the contract at any time
during, or at the end of, the contract period (including any
option period) upon payment of an amount equal to the lesser of
(1) the unamortized portion of the cost of the vessel plus
amounts incurred in connection with the termination of the
financing arrangements associated with the vessel, or (2) the
fair market value of the vessel.
(f) Domestic Construction.--The Secretary shall require in
any contract entered into under this section that each vessel
to which the contract applies--
(1) shall have been constructed in a shipyard within
the United States; and
(2) upon delivery, shall be documented under the laws
of the United States.
(g) Vessel Operation.--(1) The Secretary shall operate a
vessel held by the Secretary under a long-term lease under this
section through a contract with a United States domiciled
corporation with experience in the operation of vessels for the
United States. Any such contract shall be for a term as
determined by the Secretary.
(2) The Secretary may provide a crew for any such vessel
using civil service mariners only after an evaluation and
competition taking into account--
(A) the fully burdened cost of a civil service crew
over the expected useful life of the vessel;
(B) the effect on the private sector manpower pool;
and
(C) the operational requirements of the Department of
the Navy.
(h) Contingent Waiver of Other Provisions of Law.--A contract
authorized by this section may be entered into without regard
to section 2401 or 2401a of this title if the Secretary of
Defense makes the following findings with respect to that
contract:
(1) The need for the vessels or services to be
provided under the contract is expected to remain
substantially unchanged during the contemplated
contract or option period.
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that throughout
the contemplated contract or option period the
Secretary of the Navy (or, if the contract is for
services to be provided to, and funded by, another
military department, the Secretary of that military
department) will request funding for the contract at
the level required to avoid contract cancellation.
(3) The use of such contract or the exercise of such
option is in the interest of the national defense.
(i) Source of Funds for Termination Liability.--If a contract
entered into under this section is terminated, the costs of
such termination may be paid from--
(1) amounts originally made available for performance
of the contract;
(2) amounts currently available for operation and
maintenance of the type of vessels or services
concerned and not otherwise obligated; or
(3) funds appropriated for those costs.
CHAPTER 633--NAVAL VESSELS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7306. Vessels stricken from Naval Vessel Register; captured
vessels: transfer by gift or otherwise
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Notice to Congress.--(1) No transfer under this section
takes effect unless--
[(A) notice of the proposal to make the transfer is
sent to Congress; and
[(B) 60 days of continuous session of Congress have
expired following the date on which such notice is sent
to Congress.
[(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the continuity of a
session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the
Congress sine die, and the days on which either House is not in
session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
certain are excluded in the computation of such 60-day period.]
(d) Congressional Notice-and-Wait Period.--(1) A transfer
under this section may not take effect until--
(A) the Secretary submits to Congress notice of the
proposed transfer; and
(B) 30 days of session of Congress have expired
following the date on which the notice is sent to
Congress.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) the period of a session of Congress is broken
only by an adjournment of Congress sine die at the end
of the final session of a Congress; and
(B) any day on which either House of Congress is not
in session because of an adjournment of more than 3
days to a day certain, or because of an adjournment
sine die at the end of the first session of a Congress,
shall be excluded in the computation of such 30-day
period.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7315. Preservation of Navy shipbuilding capability
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Applicability.--(1) * * *
(2) In a shipbuilding capability preservation agreement
applicable to a shipbuilder, the Secretary may agree to apply
the cost reimbursement rules set forth in subsection (b) to
allocations of indirect costs to private sector work performed
by the shipbuilder only with respect to costs that the
shipbuilder incurred on or after [the date of the enactment of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998]
November 18, 1997, under a contract between the shipbuilder and
a private sector customer of the shipbuilder that became
effective on or after January 26, 1996.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 665--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Council shall submit to Congress a report on the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program. The report shall contain the
following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The amounts requested, in the budget submitted to
Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31[,
United States Code,] for the fiscal year following the
fiscal year in which the report is prepared, for the
programs, projects, and activities of the program and
the estimated expenditures under such programs,
projects, and activities during such following fiscal
year.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Air Force
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 853--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8681. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement
(a) * * *
(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not
eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if
the member has previously been presented a flag [under this
section or section 3681 or 6141 of this title or section 516 of
title 14.] under this section or any other provision of law
providing for the presentation of a United States flag incident
to release from active service for retirement.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 901--TRAINING GENERALLY
Sec.
9301. Members of Air Force: detail as students, observers, and
investigators at educational institutions, industrial plants,
and hospitals.
* * * * * * *
[9317. Air University: master of airpower art and science.]
9317. Air University: graduate-level degrees.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 9317. Air University: master of airpower art and science
[(a) Authority.--Upon the recommendation of the faculty of
the School of Advanced Airpower Studies of the Air University,
the Commander of the university may confer the degree of master
of airpower art and science upon graduates of the school who
fulfill the requirements for the degree.]
Sec. 9317. Air University: graduate-level degrees
(a) Authority.--Upon recommendation of the faculty of the
appropriate school, the commander of the Air University may
confer--
(1) the degree of master of strategic studies upon
graduates of the Air War College who fulfill the
requirements for that degree;
(2) the degree of master of military operational art
and science upon graduates of the Air Command and Staff
College who fulfill the requirements for that degree;
and
(3) the degree of master of airpower art and science
upon graduates of the School of Advanced Air power
Studies who fulfill the requirements for that degree.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Sec. 9335. Dean of the Faculty
(a) The Dean of the Faculty shall be appointed as an
additional permanent professor from the permanent professors
who have served as heads of departments of instruction at the
Academy.
(b) While serving as Dean of the Faculty, an officer of the
Air Force who holds a grade lower than brigadier general shall
hold the grade of brigadier general, if appointed to that grade
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The retirement age of an officer so appointed is that
of a permanent professor of the Academy An officer so appointed
is counted for purposes of the limitation in section 526(a) of
this title on general officers of the Air Force on active duty.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution
(a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the
Academy [is as follows:] (determined for any year as of the day
before the last day of the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to
that limitation, Air Force Cadets are selected as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the
last day of an academic year is graduation day.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9344. Selection of persons from foreign countries
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)
may not exceed [35] 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than [five] 20
persons receiving instruction at the Air Force Academy under
this section at any one time.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Reserve Components
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
Sec.
10201. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
* * * * * * *
10217. Non-dual status [military] technicians.
10218. Army and Air Force Reserve Technicians: conditions for
retention; mandatory retirement under civil service laws.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10216. Military technicians (dual status)
(a) In General.--(1) For purposes of this section and any
other provision of law, a military technician (dual status) is
a Federal civilian employee who--
(A) is employed under section 3101 of title 5 or
section [709] 709(b) of title 32;
(B) is required as a condition of that employment to
maintain membership in the Selected Reserve; and
(C) is assigned to a civilian position as a
technician in the administration and training of the
Selected Reserve or in the maintenance and repair of
supplies or equipment issued to the Selected Reserve or
the armed forces.
* * * * * * *
(e) Dual Status Requirement.--(1) Funds appropriated for the
Department of Defense may not (except as provided in paragraph
(2)) be used for compensation as a military technician of any
individual hired as a military technician (dual status) after
February 10, 1996, who is no longer a member of the Selected
Reserve.
(2) [The Secretary] Except as otherwise provided by law, the
Secretary concerned may pay compensation described in paragraph
(1) to an individual described in that paragraph who is no
longer a member of the Selected Reserve for a period not to
exceed [six months] up to 12 months following the individual's
loss of membership in the Selected Reserve if the Secretary
determines that such loss of membership was not due to the
failure of that individual to meet military standards.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10217. Non-dual status [military] technicians
(a) Definition.--For the purposes of this section and any
other provision of law, a non-dual status [military] technician
is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense serving in
a military technician position who--
[(1) was hired as a military technician before the
date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 under any of the
authorities specified in subsection (c); and
[(2) as of the date of the enactment of that Act is
not a member of the Selected Reserve or after such date
ceased to be a member of the Selected Reserve.]
(1) was hired as a technician before November 18,
1997, under any of the authorities specified in
subsection (b) and as of that date is not a member of
the Selected Reserve or after such date has ceased to
be a member of the Selected Reserve; or
(2) is employed under section 709 of title 32 in a
position designated under subsection (c) of that
section and when hired was not required to maintain
membership in the Selected Reserve.
* * * * * * *
(c) Permanent Limitations on Number.--(1) Effective October
1, 2007, the total number of non-dual status technicians
employed by the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve may not
exceed 175. If at any time after the preceding sentence takes
effect the number of non-dual status technicians employed by
the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve exceeds the number
specified in the limitation in the preceding sentence, the
Secretary of Defense shall require that the Secretary of the
Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate
steps to reduce the number of such technicians in order to
comply with such limitation.
(2) Effective October 1, 2001, the total number of non-dual
status technicians employed by the National Guard may not
exceed 1,950. If at any time after the preceding sentence takes
effect the number of non-dual status technicians employed by
the National Guard exceeds the number specified in the
limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense
shall require that the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary
of the Air Force, or both, take immediate steps to reduce the
number of such technicians in order to comply with such
limitation.
Sec. 10218. Army and Air Force Reserve Technicians: conditions for
retention; mandatory retirement under civil service
laws
(a) Separation and Retirement of Military Technicians (Dual
Status).--(1) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the
Air Force Reserve as a military technician (dual status) who
after the date of the enactment of this section loses dual
status is subject to paragraph (2) or (3), as the case may be.
(2) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is eligible at
the time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity, the
technician shall be separated, subject to subsection (e), not
later than 30 days after the date on which dual status is lost.
(3)(A) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is not
eligible at the time dual status is lost for an unreduced
annuity, the technician shall be offered the opportunity to--
(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a
position as a military technician (dual status); or
(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a
technician position.
(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status
technician, the technician--
(i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this subsection, to apply for any voluntary personnel
action; and
(ii) shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated
or retired--
(I) in the case of a technician first hired
as a military technician (dual status) on or
before February 10, 1996, not later than 30
days after becoming eligible for an unreduced
annuity; and
(II) in the case of a technician first hired
as a military technician (dual status) after
February 10, 1996, not later than one year
after the date on which dual status is lost.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, a military technician is
considered to lose dual status upon--
(A) being separated from the Selected Reserve; or
(B) ceasing to hold the military grade specified by
the Secretary concerned for the position held by the
technician.
(b) Non-Dual Status Technicians.--(1) An individual who on
the date of the enactment of this section is employed by the
Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status
technician and who on that date is eligible for an unreduced
annuity shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated not
later than six months after the date of the enactment of this
section.
(2)(A) An individual who on the date of the enactment of this
section is employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force
Reserve as a non-dual status technician and who on that date is
not eligible for an unreduced annuity shall be offered the
opportunity to--
(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a
position as a military technician (dual status); or
(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a
technician position.
(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status
technician, the technician--
(i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this subsection, to apply for any voluntary personnel
action; and
(ii) shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated
or retired--
(I) in the case of a technician first hired
as a technician on or before February 10, 1996,
and who on the date of the enactment of this
section is a non-dual status technician, not
later than 30 days after becoming eligible for
an unreduced annuity; and
(II) in the case of a technician first hired
as a technician after February 10, 1996, and
who on the date of the enactment of this
section is a non-dual status technician, not
later than one year after the date on which
dual status is lost.
(3) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the Air
Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician who is ineligible
for appointment to a military technician (dual status)
position, or who decides not to apply for appointment to such a
position, or who, within six months of the date of the
enactment of this section is not appointed to such a position,
shall for reduction-in-force purposes be in a separate
competitive category from employees who are military
technicians (dual status).
(c) Unreduced Annuity Defined.--For purposes of this section,
a technician shall be considered to be eligible for an
unreduced annuity if the technician is eligible for an annuity
under section 8336, 8412, or 8414 of title 5 that is not
subject to a reduction by reason of the age or years of service
of the technician.
(d) Voluntary Personnel Action Defined.--In this section, the
term ``voluntary personnel action'', with respect to a non-dual
status technician, means any of the following:
(1) The hiring, entry, appointment, reassignment,
promotion, or transfer of the technician into a
position for which the Secretary concerned has
established a requirement that the person occupying the
position be a military technician (dual status).
(2) Promotion to a higher grade if the technician is
in a position for which the Secretary concerned has
established a requirement that the person occupying the
position be a military technician (dual status).
(e) Annual Limitation on Mandatory Retirements.--Until
October 1, 2004, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of
the Air Force may not during any fiscal year approve a total of
more than 25 mandatory retirements under this section. A
technician who is subject to mandatory separation under this
section in any fiscal year and who, but for this subsection,
would be eligible to be retired with an unreduced annuity
shall, if not sooner separated under some other provision of
law, be eligible to be retained in service until mandatorily
retired consistent with the limitation in this subsection.
PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1201--AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE
Sec.
12001. Authorized strengths: reserve components.
* * * * * * *
12003. Authorized strengths: commissioned officers in an active status.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty or on
full-time National Guard duty for administration of
the reserves or the National Guard
(a) The number of reserve officers of the Army, Air Force,
and Marine Corps who may be on active duty or full-time
National Guard duty in each of the grades of major, lieutenant
colonel, and colonel, and of the Navy who may be on active duty
in each of the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and
captain, as of the end of any fiscal year for duty described in
subclauses (B) and (C) of section 523(b)(1) of this title or
full-time National Guard duty (other than for training) under
section 502(f) of title 32 may not exceed the number for that
grade and armed force in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
[Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander....... 3,219 1,071 791 140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander..... 1,524 520 713 90
Colonel or Navy Captain............. 438 188 297 30]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander....... 3,219 1,071 843 140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander..... 1,595 520 746 90
Colonel or Navy Captain............. 471 188 297 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on active
duty or on full-time National Guard duty for
administration of the reserves or the National
Guard
(a) The number of enlisted members in pay grades E-8 and E-9
who may be on active duty (other than for training) or on full-
time National Guard duty under the authority of section 502(f)
of title 32 (other than for training) as of the end of any
fiscal year in connection with organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components or
the National Guard may not exceed the number for that grade and
armed force in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
[Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9................................. 623 202 395 20
E-8................................. 2,585 429 997 94]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9................................. 645 202 403 20
E-8................................. 2,585 429 1,029 94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Whenever the number of members serving in pay grade E-9
for duty described in subsection (a) is less than the number
authorized for that grade under subsection (a), the difference
between the two numbers may be applied to increase the number
authorized under such subsection for pay grade E-8.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1205--APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS
Sec.
12201. Reserve officers: qualifications for appointment.
* * * * * * *
12216. Financial assistance for members of the Marine Corps platoon
leader's class program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12216. Financial assistance for members of the Marine Corps
platoon leader's class program
(a) Program Authority.--The Secretary of the Navy may provide
payment of not more than $5,200 per year for a period not to
exceed three consecutive years of educational expenses
(including tuition, fees, books, and laboratory expenses) to an
eligible enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve for
completion of--
(1) baccalaureate degree requirements in an approved
academic program that requires less than five academic
years to complete; or
(2) doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws
degree requirements in an approved academic program
which requires not more than three years to complete.
(b) Eligible Reservists.--To be eligible for receipt of
educational expenses as authorized by subsection (a), an
enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve must--
(1) either--
(A) be under 27 years of age on June 30 of
the calendar year in which the member is
eligible for appointment as a second lieutenant
in the Marine Corps for such persons in a
baccalaureate degree program described in
subsection (a)(1), except that any such member
who has served on active duty in the armed
forces may exceed such age limitation on such
date by a period equal to the period such
member served on active duty, but only if such
member will be under 30 years of age on such
date; or
(B) be under 31 years of age on June 30 of
the calendar year in which the member is
eligible for appointment as a second lieutenant
in the Marine Corps for such persons in a
doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws
degree program described in subsection (a)(2),
except that any such member who has served on
active duty in the armed forces may exceed such
age limitation on such date by a period equal
to the period such member served on active
duty, but only if such member will be under 35
years of age on such date;
(2) be satisfactorily enrolled at any accredited
civilian educational institution authorized to grant
baccalaureate, doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of
law degrees;
(3) be selected as an officer candidate in the Marine
Corps Platoon Leader's Class Program and successfully
complete one increment of military training of not less
than six weeks' duration; and
(4) agree in writing--
(A) to accept an appointment as a
commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, if
tendered by the President;
(B) to serve on active duty for a minimum of
five years; and
(C) under such terms and conditions as shall
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, to
serve in the Marine Corps Reserve until the
eighth anniversary of the receipt of such
appointment.
(c) Appointment.--Upon satisfactorily completing the academic
and military requirements of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders
Class Program, an officer candidate may be appointed by the
President as a Reserve officer in the Marine Corps in the grade
of second lieutenant.
(d) Limitation on Number.--Not more than 1,200 officer
candidates may participate in the financial assistance program
authorized by this section at any one time.
(e) Remedial Authority of Secretary.--An officer candidate
may be ordered to active duty in the Marine Corps by the
Secretary of the Navy to serve in an appropriate enlisted grade
for such period of time as the Secretary prescribes, but not
for more than four years, when such person--
(1) accepted financial assistance under this section;
and
(2) either--
(A) completes the military and academic
requirements of the Marine Corps Platoon
Leaders Class Program and refuses to accept a
commission when offered;
(B) fails to complete the military or
academic requirements of the Marine Corps
Platoon Leaders Class Program; or
(C) is disenrolled from the Marine Corps
Platoon Leaders Class Program for failure to
maintain eligibility for an original
appointment as a commissioned officer under
section 532 of this title.
(d) Persons Not Qualified for Appointment.--Except under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, a person
who is not physically qualified for appointment under section
532 of this title and subsequently is determined by the
Secretary of the Navy under section 505 of this title to be
unqualified for service as an enlisted member of the Marine
Corps due to a physical or medical condition that was not the
result of misconduct or grossly negligent conduct may request a
waiver of obligated service of such financial assistance.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1209--ACTIVE DUTY
Sec.
12301. Reserve components generally.
* * * * * * *
12323. Space-required travel for Reserves.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12301. Reserve components generally
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) When authorized by the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the military department concerned may order a
member of a reserve component to active duty, with the consent
of that member, to receive authorized medical care, to be
medically evaluated for disability or other purposes, or to
complete a required Department of Defense health care study,
which may include an associated medical evaluation of the
member.
(2) A member ordered to active duty under this subsection may
be retained with the member's consent, when the Secretary
concerned considers it appropriate, for medical treatment for a
condition associated with the study or evaluation, if that
treatment of the member otherwise is authorized by law.
(3) A member of the Army National Guard of the United States
or the Air National Guard of the United States may not be
ordered to active duty under this subsection without the
consent of the Governor or other appropriate authority of the
State concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12323. Space-required travel for Reserves
A member of a reserve component is authorized to travel in a
space-required status on aircraft of the armed forces between
home and place of inactive duty training, or place of duty in
lieu of unit training assembly, when there is no road or
railroad transportation (or combination of road and railroad
transportation) between those locations. A member traveling in
that status on a military aircraft pursuant to the authority
provided in this section is not authorized to receive travel,
transportation, or per diem allowances in connection with that
travel.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1213--SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES
Sec.
12501. Reserve components: detail of members of regular and reserve
components to assist.
12502. Chief and assistant chief of staff of National Guard divisions
and wings in Federal service: detail.
12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,
a member of the Ready Reserve may be ordered to funeral honors
duty, with the consent of the member, in preparation for or to
perform funeral honors functions at the funeral of a veteran
(as defined in section 1491 of this title). However, a member
of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air
National Guard of the United States may not be ordered to
perform funeral honors functions under this section without the
consent of the Governor or other appropriate authority of the
State concerned.
(b) A member ordered to funeral honors duty under this
section shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours of
such duty in order to receive service credit under section
12732(a)(2)(E) of this title and compensation under section 435
of title 37 if authorized by the Secretary concerned.
(c) Funeral honors duty (and travel directly to and from that
duty) under this section shall be treated as the equivalent of
inactive-duty training (and travel directly to and from that
training) for the purposes of this title, title 37, and title
38, including provisions relating to the determination of
eligibility for and receipt of benefits and entitlements
provided under those titles for Reserves performing inactive-
duty training and for their dependents and survivors, except
that a member is not entitled by reason of performance of
funeral honors duty to any pay, allowances, or other
compensation provided for in title 37 other than that provided
in section 435 of that title and in subsection (d).
(d) A member who performs funeral honors duty under this
section is entitled to reimbursement for travel and
transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with such duty
as authorized under chapter 7 of title 37, if such duty is
performed at a location 50 miles or more from the member's
residence.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1215--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
Sec.
12551. Prohibition of use of Air Force Reserve AGR personnel for Air
Force base security functions.
[12552. Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of treatment as
drill or training.]
12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 12552. Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of treatment as
drill or training
[Performance by a Reserve of honor guard functions at the
funeral of a veteran may not be considered to be a period of
drill or training otherwise required.]
Sec. 12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans
Performance by a Reserve of funeral honors functions at the
funeral of a veteran (as defined in section 1491 of this title)
may not be considered to be a period of drill or training, but
may be performed as funeral honors duty under section 12503 of
this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1217--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
Sec.
12601. Compensation: Reserve on active duty accepting from any person.
* * * * * * *
12602. Members of Army National Guard of United States and Air National
Guard of United States: credit for service as members of
National Guard.
12603. Attendance at inactive-duty training assemblies: commercial
travel at Federal supply schedule rates.
12605. Presentation of United States flag: members transferred from an
active status or discharged after completion of eligibility
for retired pay.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12605. Presentation of United States flag: members transferred
from an active status or discharged after
completion of eligibility for retired pay
(a) Presentation of Flag.--Upon the transfer from an active
status or discharge of a Reserve who has completed the years of
service required for eligibility for retired pay under chapter
1223 of this title, the Secretary concerned shall present a
United States flag to the member.
(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not
eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the
member has previously been presented a flag under this section
or any provision of law providing for the presentation of a
United States flag incident to release from active service for
retirement.
(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag under
this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1223--RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12732. Entitlement to retired pay: computation of years of service
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), for the purpose of
determining whether a person is entitled to retired pay under
section 12731 of this title, the person's years of service are
computed by adding the following:
(1) * * *
(2) Each one-year period, after July 1, 1949, in
which the person has been credited with at least 50
points on the following basis:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) One point for each day in which funeral
honors functions were performed under section
12503 of this title or section 115 of title 32.
For the purpose of clauses (A), (B), (C), [and (D)]
(D), and (E), service in the National Guard shall be
treated as if it were service in a reserve component,
if the person concerned was later appointed in the
National Guard of the United States, the Army National
Guard of the United States, the Air National Guard of
the United States, or as a Reserve of the Army or the
Air Force, and served continuously in the National
Guard from the date of his Federal recognition to the
date of that appointment.
* * * * * * *
PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
STATUS LIST
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1405--PROMOTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14301. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: general rules
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) A reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the
Air Force who is in an inactive status is eligible
(notwithstanding subsection (a)) for consideration for
promotion to major general by a promotion board convened under
section 14101(a) of this title if the officer--
(1) has been in an inactive status for less than [1]
one year as of the date of the convening of the
promotion board; and
(2) had continuously served for at least [1] one year
on the reserve active status list or the active duty
list (or a combination of both) immediately before the
officer's most recent transfer to an inactive status.
(h) Officers on Educational Delay.--A Reserve officer who is
in an educational delay status for the purpose of attending an
approved institution of higher education for advanced training,
subsidized by the military department concerned in the form of
a scholarship or stipend, is ineligible for consideration for
promotion while in that status. The officer shall remain on the
Reserve active status list while in such an educational delay
status.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1407--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY
SEPARATION
Sec.
14501. Failure of selection for promotion.
* * * * * * *
14518. Continuation on reserve active status list to complete
disciplinary action.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14506. Effect of failure of selection for promotion: reserve
majors of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and
reserve lieutenant commanders of the Navy
Unless retained as provided in section 12646, 12686, 14701,
or 14702 of this title, each reserve officer of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, or Marine Corps who holds the grade of major or
lieutenant commander who has failed of selection to the next
higher grade for the second time and whose name is not on a
list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher
grade shall, if not earlier removed from the reserve active-
status list, be removed from that list in accordance with
section [14513 of this title on the first day of the month
after the month in which the officer completes 20 years of
commissioned service.] section 14513 of this title on the later
of--
(1) the first day of the month after the month in
which the officer completes 20 years of commissioned
service; or
(2) the first day of the seventh month after the
month in which the President approves the report of the
board which considered the officer for the second time.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14518. Continuation on reserve active status list to complete
disciplinary action
When an action is commenced against a Reserve officer with a
view to trying the officer by court-martial, as authorized by
section 802(d) of this title, the Secretary concerned may delay
the separation or retirement of the officer under this chapter
until the completion of the disciplinary action under chapter
47 of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1409--CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS
LIST AND SELECTIVE EARLY REMOVAL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14703. Authority to retain chaplains and officers in medical
specialties until specified age
(a) * * *
(b) Separation at Specified Age.--An officer may not be
retained in active status under this section later than the
date on which the officer becomes 67 years of age [(or, in the
case of a reserve officer of the Army in the Chaplains or a
reserve officer of the Air Force designated as a chaplain, 60
years of age)].
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14706. Computation of total years of service
[For the purpose of this chapter and chapter 1407 of this
title, a reserve officer's years of service include all
service, other than constructive service, of the officer as a
commissioned officer of any uniformed service (other than
service as a warrant officer).]
(a) For the purpose of this chapter and chapter 1407 of this
title, a Reserve officer's years of service include all service
of the officer as a commissioned officer of a uniformed service
other than--
(1) service as a warrant officer;
(2) constructive service; and
(3) service after appointment as a commissioned
officer of a reserve component while in a program of
advanced education to obtain the first professional
degree required for appointment, designation, or
assignment as an officer in the Medical Corps, the
Dental Corps, the Veterinary Corps, the Medical Service
Corps, the Nurse Corps, the Army Medical Specialists
Corps, or as an officer designated as a chaplain or
judge advocate, provided such service occurs before the
officer commences initial service on active duty or
initial service in the Ready Reserve in the specialty
that results from such a degree.
(b) The exclusion under subsection (a)(3) does not apply to
service performed by an officer who previously served on active
duty or participated as a member of the Ready Reserve in other
than a student status for the period of service preceding the
member's service in a student status.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1606--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED
RESERVE
Sec.
16131. Educational assistance program: establishment; amount.
* * * * * * *
[16137. Reports to Congress.]
16137. Biennial report to Congress.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16131. Educational assistance program: establishment; amount
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) Except as provided in subsections (d) through (f),
each educational assistance program established under
subsection (a) shall provide for payment by the Secretary
concerned, through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to each
person entitled to educational assistance under this chapter
who is pursuing a program of education of an educational
assistance allowance at the following rates:
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 16137. Report to Congress
[The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a
report not later than March 1 of each year concerning the
operation of the educational assistance program established by
this chapter during the preceding fiscal year. Each such report
shall include the number of members of the Selected Reserve of
the Ready Reserve of each armed force receiving, and the number
entitled to receive, educational assistance under this chapter
during the preceding fiscal year.]
Sec. 16137. Biennial report to Congress
The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
not later than March 1 of each odd-numbered year concerning the
operation of the educational assistance program established by
this chapter during the preceding two fiscal years. Each such
report shall include the number of members of the Selected
Reserve of the Ready Reserve of each armed force receiving, and
the number entitled to receive, educational assistance under
this chapter during those fiscal years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions
officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime
critical medical skill shortages
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned
officer before January 1, [2000] 2001.
* * * * * * *
PART V--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1803--FACILITIES FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 18233. Acquisition
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) Authority provided by law to construct, expand,
rehabilitate, convert, or equip any facility under this section
includes authority to expend funds for surveys, administration,
overhead, planning, design, and supervision incident to any
such activity.
Sec. 18233a. Limitation on certain projects; authority to carry out
small projects with operation and maintenance funds
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to expenditures or
contributions for the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) An unspecified minor construction project
intended solely to correct a deficiency that is life-
threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening,
except that the expenditure or contribution for the
project may not exceed $3,000,000.
(b) Under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may
prescribe, a project authorized under section 18233(a) of this
title that costs $500,000 or less (or $1,000,000 or less if the
project is intended solely to correct a deficiency that is
life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening),
may be carried out with funds available for operations and
maintenance.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 386 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1993
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle G--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 386. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT BENEFIT
DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Eligible Local Educational Agencies.--A local educational
agency is eligible for assistance under subsection (b) for a
fiscal year if--
(1) at least 20 percent (as rounded to the nearest
whole percent) of the students in average daily
attendance in the schools of that agency [in that
fiscal year are] during the preceding school year were
military dependent students counted under section
8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1));
* * * * * * *
----------
DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION ACT OF 1978
* * * * * * *
establishment of defense dependents' education system
Sec. 1402. (a) * * *
(b)(1) The Secretary shall ensure that individuals eligible
to receive a free public education under subsection (a)
[recieve] receive an education of high quality.
* * * * * * *
[office of dependents' education
Sec. [1403. (a)(1) There is established within the Department
of Defense an office to be known as the Office of Dependents'
Education.
[(2) The Office of Dependents' Education shall be headed by a
Director of Dependents' Education (hereinafter in this title
referred to as the ``Director''), who shall be a civilian and
who shall be selected by the Secretary of Defense and shall
report to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower,
Reserve Affairs, and Logistics.]
administration of defense dependents' education system
Sec. 1403. (a) The defense dependents' education system is
operated through the field activity of the Department of
Defense known as the Department of Defense Education Activity.
That activity is headed by a Director, who is a civilian and is
selected by the Secretary of Defense. The Director reports to
an Assistant Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary
of Defense for purposes of this title.
(b) Except with respect to the authority to prescribe
regulations, the Secretary of Defense may carry out his
functions under [this Act] this title through the Director.
(c) The Director shall--
(1) establish personnel policies, consistent with the
Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel
Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), for employees in
the defense dependents' education system,
(2) have authority to transfer professional employees
in the defense dependents' education system from one
position to another[.],
* * * * * * *
(6) perform such other functions as may be required
or delegated by the Secretary of Defense or the
[Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve
Affairs, and Logistics] the Assistant Secretary of
Defense designated under subsection (a).
(d)(1) The Director shall establish appropriate regional or
area offices [for the Office of Dependents' Education] in order
to provide for thorough and efficient administration of the
defense dependents' education system.
(2) [Not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the Congress a report (A) describing the organization of the
Office of Dependents' Education in accordance with paragraph
(1), (B) describing the assignment of personnel to the central
office of the Office of Dependents' Education and to such
regional or area offices as are established pursuant to
paragraph (1), and (C) detailing the personnel requirements of
the defense dependents' education system.] [Whenever the Office
of Dependents' Education] Whenever the Department of Defense
Education Activity is reorganized [after the submission of the
report required under the preceding sentence] in a manner that
affects the defense dependents' education system, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit [an additional report] a report to the
Congress describing the reorganization.
(3) Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, [the
Office of Dependents' Education] the Department of Defense
Education Activity is authorized an appropriate number of
civilian employees in its central office and such regional or
area office as are established pursuant to paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
allotment formula
Sec. 1409. (a) * * *
(b) Any regulation under subsection (a) shall be issued, and
shall become effective, in accordance with the procedures
applicable to regulations required to be issued by the
[Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in accordance
with section 431 of the General Education Provisions Act]
Secretary of Education in accordance with section 437 of the
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232).
(c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
(1) Children with disabilities.--Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 1402(b)(3), the provisions of
part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, other than the funding and reporting provisions,
shall apply to all schools operated by the Department
of Defense under this title, including the requirement
that children with disabilities, aged 3 to 5,
inclusive, receive a free appropriate public education
[by academic year 1993-1994].
* * * * * * *
(3) [Implementation timelines.--In carrying out the
provisions of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
[(A) in academic year 1991-1992 and the 2
succeeding academic years, plan and develop a
comprehensive] Implementation.--In carrying out
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall have in
effect a comprehensive, coordinated,
multidisciplinary program of early intervention
services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities among Department of Defense
entities involved in the provision of such
services to such individuals[;].
[(B) in academic year 1994-1995, implement
the program described in subparagraph (A),
except the Secretary need only conduct
multidisciplinary assessments, develop
individualized family service plans, and make
available case management services; and
[(C) in academic year 1995-1996 and
succeeding academic years, have in effect the
program described in subparagraph (A).]
* * * * * * *
advisory council on dependents' education
Sec. 1411. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Members of the Council who are not in the regular full-
time employ of the United States shall, while attending
meetings or conferences of the Council or otherwise engaged in
the business of the Council, be entitled to receive
compensation at the daily equivalent of the rate specified at
the time of such service for [grade GS-18 in section 5332 of
title 5, United States Code] level IV of the Executive Schedule
under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, including
traveltime, and while so serving on the business of the Council
away from their homes or regular places of business, they may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United
States Code, for persons employed intermittently in the
Government service.
* * * * * * *
study of defense dependents' education system
Sec. 1412. (a)(1) [As soon as practicable after the date of
the enactment of this Act [Nov. 1, 1978], the Director shall
provide for] The Director may from time to time, but not more
frequently than once a year, provide for a comprehensive study
of the entire defense dependents' education [system, which]
system. Any such study shall include a detailed analysis of the
education programs and the facilities of the system.
(2) [The study required by this subsection] Any study under
paragraph (1) shall be conducted by a contractor selected by
the Director after an open competition. After conducting such
study, the contractor shall submit a report to the Director
[not later than two years after the effective date of this
title] describing the results of the study and giving its
assessment of the defense dependents' education system.
(b) In designing the specifications for [the] any study to be
conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(1), and in selecting a
contractor to conduct such study under subsection (a)(2), the
Director shall consult with the Advisory Council on Dependents'
Education established under section 1411 of this title.
(c) The Director shall submit to the Congress [not later than
one year after the effective date of this title the report] any
report submitted to him under subsection (a)(2) describing the
results of [the study] a study carried out pursuant to
subsection (a)(1), together with the recommendations, if any,
of the contractor for legislation or any increase in funding
needed to improve the defense dependents' education system.
Notwithstanding any law, rule, or regulation to the contrary,
such report shall not be submitted to any review before its
transmittal to the Congress, but the Secretary of Defense
shall, at the time of the transmittal of such report, submit to
the Congress such recommendations as he may have with respect
to legislation or any increase in funding needed to improve the
defense dependents' education system.
[(d) The Director may provide for additional studies of the
defense dependents' education system to be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of this section, but such
studies shall not be conducted more frequently than once a
year. A report of each study shall be submitted to the Congress
in accordance with subsection (c), and the second sentence of
such subsection shall apply with respect to the transmission of
each such report.]
regulations
Sec. 1413. [Not later than 180 days after the effective date
of this title, the] The Secretary of Defense shall issue
regulations to carry out this title. Such regulations shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
definitions
Sec. 1414. For purposes of this title:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) The term ``Director'' means the Director of the
Department of Defense Education Activity.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 3342 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 3342. Check cashing and exchange transactions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) With respect to automated teller machines on naval
vessels of the Navy, the authority of a disbursing official of
the United States Government under subsection (a) also includes
the following:
(1) The authority to provide operating funds to the
automated teller machines.
(2) The authority to accept, for safekeeping,
deposits and transfers of funds made through the
automated teller machines.
----------
SECTION 1523 OF THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME ACT OF 1991
SEC. 1523. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS AT UNITED
STATES SOLDIERS' AND AIRMEN'S HOME.
(a) Historic Nature of Facility.--Congress finds the
following:
(1) Four buildings located on six acres of the
establishment of the Retirement Home known as the
United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home are included
on the National Register of Historic Places maintained
by the Secretary of the Interior.
(2) Amounts in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust
Fund, which consists primarily of deductions from the
pay of members of the Armed Forces, are insufficient to
both maintain and operate the Retirement Home for the
benefit of the residents of the Retirement Home and
adequately maintain, repair, and preserve these
historic buildings and grounds.
(3) Other sources of funding are available to
contribute to the maintenance, repair, and preservation
of these historic buildings and grounds.
(b) Authority To Accept Assistance.--The Chairman of the
Retirement Home Board and the Director of the United States
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home may apply for and accept a direct
grant from the Secretary of the Interior under section
101(e)(3) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.
470a(e)(3)) for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, and
preserving the historic buildings and grounds of the United
States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home included on the National
Register of Historic Places.
(c) Requirements and Limitations.--Amounts received as a
grant under subsection (b) shall be deposited in the Fund, but
shall be kept separate from other amounts in the Fund. The
amounts received may only be used for the purpose specified in
subsection (b).
----------
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--BASIC PAY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 205. Computation: service creditable
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a commissioned officer
appointed under sections 12209 and 12216 of title 10 may not
count in computing basic pay a period of service after January
1, 2000, that the officer performed concurrently as a member of
the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class Program and the Marine
Corps Reserve, except that service after that date that the
officer performed before commissioning while serving as an
enlisted member on active duty or as a member of the Selected
Reserve may be so counted.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 209. Members of precommissioning programs
(a) Except when on active duty, a member of the Senior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps who is selected for advanced
training under section 2104 of title 10 is entitled to a
subsistence allowance of [$150] $200 a month beginning on the
day he starts advanced training and ending upon the completion
of his instruction under that section, but in no event shall
any member receive such pay for more than 30 months.
Subsistence allowance under this section may not be considered
financial assistance requiring additional service within the
meaning of the third sentence of section 6(d)(1) of the
Military Selective Act (50 U.S.C App. 456(d)(1)).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
Sec.
301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.
* * * * * * *
318. Special pay: special warfare officers extending period of active
duty.
319. Special pay: surface warfare officer continuation pay.
320. Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers.
321. Special pay: judge advocate continuation pay.
322. Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for members entering
service on or after August 1, 1986.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 301a. Incentive pay: aviation career
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) An officer serving as an air battle manager who is
entitled to aviation career incentive pay under this section
and who, before becoming entitled to aviation career incentive
pay, was entitled to incentive pay under section 301(a)(11) of
this title, is entitled to monthly incentive pay at a rate
equal to the greater of the following:
(A) The rate applicable under this subsection.
(B) The rate at which the member was receiving
incentive pay under section 301(c)(2)(A) of this title
immediately before the member's entitlement to aviation
career incentive pay under this section.
Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of
active duty
(a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1,
1989, and ending on December 31, [1999] 2000, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as
provided in this section.
* * * * * * *
(b) Covered Officers.--An aviation officer referred to in
subsection (a) is an officer of a uniformed service who--
(1) * * *
[(2) is in an aviation specialty designated by the
Secretary concerned (with the approval of the Secretary
of Defense in the case of the Secretary of a military
department) as a critical aviation specialty;]
[(3)] (2) is in a pay grade below pay [grade 0-6]
grade 0-7;
[(4)] (3) is qualified to perform operational flying
duty; and
[(5) has completed at least six but less than 13
years of aviation service; and]
[(6)] (4) has completed any active duty service
commitment incurred for undergraduate aviator training.
(c) Amount of Bonus.--The amount of a retention bonus paid
under this section may not be more [than--
[(1) $25,000 for each year covered by the written
agreement, if the officer agrees to remain on active
duty to complete 14 years of commissioned service; or
[(2) $12,000 for each year covered by the written
agreement, if the officer agrees to remain on active
duty for one, two, or three years.] than $25,000 for
each year covered by the written agreement to remain on
active duty.
(d) Proration.--The term of an agreement under subsection
(a) and the amount of the bonus under subsection (c) may be
prorated as long as such agreement does not extend beyond the
date on which the officer making such agreement would complete
[14 years of commissioned service] 25 years of aviation
service.
* * * * * * *
(g) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is
entered less than 5 years after the termination of a written
agreement entered into under subsection (a) does not discharge
the officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under
such agreement or under paragraph (1). [This paragraph applies
to any case commenced under title 11 after January 1, 1989.]
* * * * * * *
(i) Reports.--(1) Not later than February 15 of each year,
the Secretaries concerned shall submit to the Secretary of
Defense a report analyzing the effect of the provision of
retention bonuses to aviation officers during the preceding
fiscal year on the retention of qualified aviators. [Each
report shall include--
[(A) a comparison of the cost of paying bonuses to
officers who enter into an agreement for the period
referred to in subsection (c)(1) with the cost of
paying bonuses to officers who enter into an agreement
for a period referred to in subsection (c)(2); and
[(B) a description of the increase in the retention
of qualified aviators as a result of the program.]
* * * * * * *
(j) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``aviation service'' means service
performed by an officer (except a flight surgeon or
other medical officer) while holding an aeronautical
rating or designation or while in training to receive
an aeronautical rating or designation.
[(2) The term ``aviation specialty'' means a specific
community of pilots identified by type of aircraft or
weapon system or a specific community of other
designated aeronautical officers so identified.
[(3) The term ``critical aviation specialty'' means
an aviation speciality in which there exists a shortage
of officers on the date of designation under subsection
(b).]
[(4)] (2) The term ``operational flying duty'' has
the meaning given such term in section 301a(a)(6)(A) of
this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on
November 29, 1989, and ending on December 31, [1999] 2000,
executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to
accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for
a period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance
of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an
accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary
concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists
(a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November
29, 1989, and ending on December 31, [1999] 2000, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one
year or more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the
Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount
not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in
critically short wartime specialties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under
this section may be entered into after December 31, [1999]
2000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 304. Special pay: diving duty
(a) * * *
(b) Special pay payable under subsection (a) shall be paid at
a rate of not more than [$200] $240 a month, in the case of an
officer, and at a rate of not more than [$300] $340 a month, in
the case of an enlisted member.
[(c) A member may be paid special pay under this section and
incentive pay under section 301 of this title for the same
period of service only if the member is assigned by orders to a
hazardous duty described in section 301(a) of this title in
addition to diving duty. However, if a member is paid special
pay under this section, the member is not entitled to more than
one payment of incentive pay under section 301 of this title.]
(c) If, in addition to diving duty, a member is assigned by
orders to one or more hazardous duties described in section 301
of this title, the member may be paid, for the same period of
service, special pay under this section and incentive pay under
such section 301 for each hazardous duty for which the member
is qualified.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus
(a)(1) A member of a uniformed service who--
(A) has completed at least [twenty-one months] 17
months of continuous active duty (other than for
training) but not more than fourteen years of active
duty;
* * * * * * *
(2) The bonus to be paid under paragraph (1) may not exceed
the lesser of the following amounts:
(A) The amount equal to the product of--
(i) [ten] 15 times the monthly rate of basic
pay to which the member was entitled at the
time of the discharge or release of the member;
and
* * * * * * *
(B) [$45,000] $60,000.
* * * * * * *
(g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty
reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after December
31, [1999] 2000.
Sec. 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus
(a) Bonus Authorized; Bonus Amount.--Notwithstanding section
514(a) of title 10 or any other law, under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary of
Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy, a person who enlists in an
armed force for a period of at least four years in a skill
designated as critical, or who extends his initial period of
active duty in that armed force to a total of at least four
years in a skill designated as critical, may be paid a bonus in
an amount prescribed by the appropriate Secretary, but not more
than [$12,000] $20,000. [The bonus shall be paid in periodic
installments, as determined by the appropriate Secretary,
except that the first installment may not exceed $7,000 and the
remainder shall be paid in equal periodic installments which
may not be paid less frequently than once every 3 months.]
(b) Payment Methods.--A bonus under this section may be paid
in a single lump sum, or in periodic installments, to provide
an extra incentive for a member to successfully complete the
training necessary for the member to be technically qualified
in the skill for which the bonus is paid.
[(b)] (c) Repayment of Bonus.--Under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary of
Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy, a person who voluntarily,
or because of his misconduct, does not complete the term of
enlistment for which a bonus was paid to him under this section
or a member who is not technically qualified in the skill for
which a bonus was paid to him under this section (other than a
person who is not qualified because of injury, illness, or
other impairment not the result of his own misconduct) shall
refund that percentage of the bonus that the unexpired part of
his enlistment is of the total enlistment period for which the
bonus was paid.
[(c)] (d) Termination of Authority.--No bonus shall be paid
under this section with respect to any enlistment or extension
of an initial period of active duty in the armed forces made
after December 31, [1999] 2000.
Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected
Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under
this section to any enlisted member who, after December 31,
[1999] 2000, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in
a reserve component.
Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted
member who, after December 31, [1999] 2000, enlists in the
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve
assigned to certain high priority units
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this
section for inactive duty performed after December 31, [1999]
2000.
Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after December 31,
[1999] 2000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to
an enlistment in the Army after December 31, [1999] 2000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or
voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of
the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person
for a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an
enlistment after December 31, [1999] 2000.
Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus
(a) Authority and Eligibility Requirements.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(2) A bonus may only be paid under this section to a person
who--
[(A) has completed his military service obligation
but has less than 14 years of total military service;
[(B) has received an honorable discharge at the
conclusion of military service;
[(C) is not being released from active service for
the purpose of enlistment in a reserve component;
[(D) is projected to occupy a position as a member of
the Selected Reserve in a specialty in which--
[(i) the person successfully served while a
member on active duty; and
[(ii) the person attained a level of
qualification while a member on active duty
commensurate with the grade and years of
service of the member; and
[(E) has not previously been paid a bonus (except
under this section) for enlistment, reenlistment, or
extension of enlistment in a reserve component.]
(2) A bonus may only be paid under this section to a person
who meets each of the following requirements:
(A) The person has completed a military service
obligation, but has less than 14 years of total
military service, and received an honorable discharge
at the conclusion of that military service obligation.
(B) The person was not released, or is not being
released, from active service for the purpose of
enlistment in a reserve component.
(C) The person is projected to occupy, or is
occupying, a position as a member of the Selected
Reserve in a specialty in which the person--
(i) successfully served while a member on
active duty and attained a level of
qualification while on active duty commensurate
with the grade and years of service of the
member; or
(ii) has completed training or retraining in
the specialty skill that is designated as
critically short and attained a level of
qualification in the specialty skill that is
commensurate with the grade and years of
service of the member.
(D) The person has not previously been paid a bonus
(except under this section) for enlistment,
reenlistment, or extension of enlistment in a reserve
component.
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under
this section to any person for an enlistment after December 31,
[1999] 2000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of
active duty
(a) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of
the Navy, an officer of the naval service who--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
may, upon the acceptance by the Secretary or his designee of
the written agreement, in addition to all other compensation to
which he is entitled, be paid a sum of money not to exceed
[$15,000] $25,000 for each year of the active-service
agreement. The Secretary of the Navy shall determine annually
the necessity for continuance of the special pay and the rate
of special pay per year for such active-service agreements
accepted within each 12-month period. Upon acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary or his designee, the total amount
payable shall be paid in equal annual installments over the
length of the contract, commencing at the expiration of any
existing period of obligated active service. The Secretary (or
his designee) may accept an active service agreement under this
section not more than one year in advance of the end of an
officer's existing period of obligated active service under
such an agreement. In such a case, the amount of the special
pay may be paid commencing with the date of acceptance of the
agreement, with the number of installments being equal to the
number of years covered by the contract plus one.
* * * * * * *
(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before December 31, [1999]
2000, execute the required written agreement to remain in
active service.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus
(a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Navy, an individual who is selected for officer naval nuclear
power training and who executes a written agreement to
participate in a program of training for duty in connection
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval
nuclear propulsion plants may be paid a bonus of [$10,000]
$20,000 upon acceptance by the Secretary of the written
agreement. Upon acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary,
the amounts payable upon selection for training and upon
completion of training, respectively, as determined under
subsection (b), shall become fixed.
* * * * * * *
(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before December 31, [1999]
2000, have been accepted for training for duty in connection
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval
nuclear propulsion plants.
Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus
(a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Navy, an officer of the naval service who--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
may, in addition to all other compensation to which he is
entitled, be paid an annual bonus in an amount not to exceed
[$12,000] $22,000 for each nuclear service year.
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Navy, an officer of the naval service who--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
may, in addition to all other compensation to which he is
entitled, be paid an annual bonus in an amount not to exceed
[$5,500] $10,000 for each nuclear service year.
* * * * * * *
(d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before [October 1, 1998,
and the 15-month period beginning on that date and ending on
December 31, 1999.] December 31, 2000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 316. Special pay: foreign language proficiency pay
(a) * * *
(b) The monthly rate for special pay under subsection (a)
shall be determined by the Secretary concerned and may not
exceed [$100] $300.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 318. Special pay: special warfare officers extending period of
active duty
(a) Special Warfare Officer Defined.--In this section, the
term ``special warfare officer'' means an officer of a
uniformed service who--
(1) is qualified for a military occupational
specialty or designator identified by the Secretary
concerned as a special warfare military occupational
specialty or designator; and
(2) is serving in a position for which that specialty or
designator is authorized.
(b) Retention Bonus Authorized.--A special warfare officer
who meets the eligibility requirements specified in subsection
(c) and who executes a written agreement, on or after October
1, 1999, to remain on active duty in special warfare service
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as
provided in this section.
(c) Eligible Officers.--A special warfare officer may apply
to enter into an agreement referred to in subsection (b) if the
officer--
(1) is in pay grade O-3, or is in pay grade O-4 and
is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion,
at the time the officer applies to enter into the
agreement;
(2) has completed at least 6, but not more than 14,
years of active commissioned service; and
(3) has completed any service commitment incurred to
be commissioned as an officer.
(d) Amount of Bonus.--The amount of a retention bonus paid
under this section may not be more than $15,000 for each year
covered by the agreement.
(e) Proration.--The term of an agreement under subsection (b)
and the amount of the retention bonus payable under subsection
(d) may be prorated as long as the agreement does not extend
beyond the date on which the officer executing the agreement
would complete 14 years of active commissioned service.
(f) Payment Methods.--(1) Upon acceptance of an agreement
under subsection (b) by the Secretary concerned, the total
amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed.
(2) The amount of the retention bonus may be paid as follows:
(A) At the time the agreement is accepted by the
Secretary concerned, the Secretary may make a lump sum
payment equal to half the total amount payable under
the agreement. The balance of the bonus amount shall be
paid in equal annual installments on the anniversary of
the acceptance of the agreement.
(B) The Secretary concerned may make graduated annual
payments under regulations prescribed by the Secretary,
with the first payment being payable at the time the
agreement is accepted by the Secretary and subsequent
payments being payable on the anniversary of the
acceptance of the agreement.
(g) Additional Pay.--A retention bonus paid under this
section is in addition to any other pay and allowances to which
an officer is entitled.
(h) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into an
agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or part of
a retention bonus under this section fails to complete the
total period of active duty in special warfare service as
specified in the agreement, the Secretary concerned may require
the officer to repay the United States, on a pro rata basis and
to the extent that the Secretary determines conditions and
circumstances warrant, all sums paid the officer under this
section.
(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United
States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
less than five years after the termination of an agreement
entered into under subsection (a) does not discharge the
officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such
agreement or under paragraph (1).
(i) Regulations.--The Secretaries concerned shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section, including the definition
of the term ``special warfare service'' for purposes of this
section. Regulations prescribed by the Secretary of a military
department under this section shall be subject to the approval
of the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 319. Special pay: surface warfare officer continuation pay
(a) Eligible Surface Warfare Officer Defined.--In this
section, the term ``eligible surface warfare officer'' means an
officer of the Regular Navy or Naval Reserve on active duty
who--
(1) is qualified and serving as a surface warfare
officer;
(2) has been selected for assignment as a department
head on a surface vessel; and
(3) has completed any service commitment incurred
through the officer's original commissioning program.
(b) Special Pay Authorized.--An eligible surface warfare
officer who executes a written agreement, on or after October
1, 1999, to remain on active duty to complete one or more tours
of duty to which the officer may be ordered as a department
head on a surface ship may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary of the Navy, be paid an amount not
to exceed $50,000.
(c) Proration.--The term of the written agreement under
subsection (b) and the amount payable under the agreement may
be prorated.
(d) Payment Methods.--Upon acceptance of the written
agreement under subsection (b) by the Secretary of the Navy,
the total amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes
fixed. The Secretary shall prepare an implementation plan
specifying the amount of each installment payment under the
agreement and the times for payment of the installments.
(e) Additional Pay.--Any amount paid under this section is in
addition to any other pay and allowances to which an officer is
entitled.
(f) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a
written agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or
part of the amount payable under the agreement fails to
complete the total period of active duty as a department head
on a surface ship specified in the agreement, the Secretary of
the Navy may require the officer to repay the United States, to
the extent that the Secretary of the Navy determines conditions
and circumstances warrant, any or all sums paid under this
section.
(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the United
States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
less than five years after the termination of an agreement
entered into under subsection (b) does not discharge the
officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such
agreement or under paragraph (1).
(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Navy shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.
Sec. 320. Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers
(a) Eligible Career Enlisted Flyer Defined.--In this section,
the term ``eligible career enlisted flyer'' means an enlisted
member of the armed forces who--
(1) is entitled to basic pay under section 204 of
this title, or is entitled to pay under section 206 of
this title as described in subsection (e) of this
section;
(2) holds an enlisted military occupational specialty
or enlisted military rating designated as a career
enlisted flyer specialty or rating by the Secretary
concerned, performs duty as a dropsonde system
operator, or is in training leading to qualification
and designation of such a specialty or rating or the
performance of such duty;
(3) is qualified for aviation service under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned; and
(4) satisfies the operational flying duty
requirements applicable under subsection (c).
(b) Incentive Pay Authorized.--(1) The Secretary concerned
may pay monthly incentive pay to an eligible career enlisted
flyer in an amount not to exceed the monthly maximum amounts
specified in subsection (d). The incentive pay may be paid as
continuous monthly incentive pay or on a month-to-month basis,
dependent upon the operational flying duty performed by the
eligible career enlisted flyer as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2) Continuous monthly incentive pay may not be paid to an
eligible career enlisted flyer after the member completes 25
years of aviation service. Thereafter, an eligible career
enlisted flyer may still receive incentive pay on a month-to-
month basis under subsection (c)(4) for the frequent and
regular performance of operational flying duty.
(c) Operational Flying Duty Requirements.--(1) An eligible
career enlisted flyer must perform operational flying duties
for 6 of the first 10, 9 of the first 15, and 14 of the first
20 years of aviation service, to be eligible for continuous
monthly incentive pay under this section.
(2) Upon completion of 10, 15, or 20 years of aviation
service, an enlisted member who has not performed the minimum
required operational flying duties specified in paragraph (1)
during the prescribed period, although otherwise meeting the
definition in subsection (a), may no longer be paid continuous
monthly incentive pay except as provided in paragraph (3).
Payment of continuous monthly incentive pay if the member meets
the minimum operational flying duty requirement upon completion
of the next established period of aviation service.
(3) For the needs of the service, the Secretary concerned may
permit, on a case-by-case basis, a member to continue to
receive continuous monthly incentive pay despite the member's
failure to perform the operational flying duty required during
the first 10, 15, or 20 years of aviation service, but only if
the member otherwise meets the definition in subsection (a) and
has performed at least 5 years of operational flying duties
during the first 10 years of aviation service, 8 years of
operational flying duties during the first 15 years of aviation
service, or 12 years of operational flying duty during the
first 20 years of aviation service. The authority of the
Secretary concerned under this paragraph may not be delegated
below the level of the Service Personnel Chief.
(4) If the eligibility of an eligible career enlisted flyer
to continuous monthly incentive pay ceases under subsection
(b)(2) or paragraph (2), the member may still receive month-to-
month incentive pay for subsequent frequent and regular
performance of operational flying duty. The rate payable is the
same rate authorized by the Secretary concerned under
subsection (d) for a member of corresponding years of aviation
service.
(d) Monthly Maximum Incentive Pay.--The monthly rate for
incentive pay under this section may not exceed the amounts
specified in the following table for the applicable years of
aviation service:
Monthly
Years of aviation service: rate
4 or less................................................. $150
Over 4.................................................... $225
Over 8.................................................... $350
Over 14................................................... $400
(e) Eligibility of Reserve Component Members When Performing
Inactive Duty Training.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary concerned, when a member of a reserve component or
the National Guard, who is entitled to compensation under
section 206 of this title, meets the definition of eligible
career enlisted flyer, the Secretary concerned may increase the
member's compensation by an amount equal to \1/30\ of the
monthly incentive pay authorized by the Secretary concerned
under subsection (d) for a member of corresponding years of
aviation service who is entitled to basic pay under section 204
of this title. The reserve component member may receive the
increase for as long as the member is qualified for it, for
each regular period of instruction or period of appropriate
duty, at which the member is engaged for at least two hours, or
for the performance of such other equivalent training,
instruction, duty or appropriate duties, as the Secretary may
prescribe under section 206(a) of this title.
(f) Relation to Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay or Diving Duty
Special Pay.--A member receiving special pay under section
301(a) or 304 of this title may not be paid incentive pay under
this section for the same period of service.
(g) Save Pay Provision.--If, immediately before a member
receives incentive pay under this section, the member was
entitled to incentive pay under section 301(a) of this title,
the rate at which the member is paid incentive pay under this
section shall be equal to the higher of the monthly amount
applicable under subsection (d) or the rate of incentive pay
the member was receiving under subsection (b) or (c)(2)(A) of
section 301 of this title.
(h) Specialty Code of Dropsonde System Operators.--Within the
Air Force, the Secretary of the Air Force shall assign to
members who are dropsonde system operators a specialty code
that identifies such members as serving in a weather specialty.
(i) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``aviation service'' means participation
in aerial flight performed, under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned, by an eligible
career enlisted flyer.
(2) The term ``operational flying duty'' means flying
performed under competent orders while serving in
assignments, including an assignment as a dropsonde
system operator, in which basic flying skills normally
are maintained in the performance of assigned duties as
determined by the Secretary concerned, and flying duty
performed by members in training that leads to the
award of an enlisted aviation rating or military
occupational specialty designated as a career enlisted
flyer rating or specialty by the Secretary concerned.
Sec. 321. Special pay: judge advocate continuation pay
(a) Eligible Judge Advocate Defined.--In this section, the
term ``eligible judge advocate'' means an officer of the armed
forces on full-time active duty who--
(1) is qualified and serving as a judge advocate, as
defined in section 801 of title 10; and
(2) has completed any service commitment incurred
through the officer's original commissioning program.
(b) Special Pay Authorized.--An eligible judge advocate who
executes a written agreement, on or after October 1, 1999, to
remain on active duty for a period of obligated service
specified in the agreement may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an amount not to
exceed $60,000.
(c) Proration.--The term of the written agreement under
subsection (b) and the amount payable under the agreement may
be prorated.
(d) Payment Methods.--Upon acceptance of the written
agreement under subsection (b) by the Secretary concerned, the
total amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed.
The Secretary shall prepare an implementation plan specifying
the amount of each installment payment under the agreement and
the times for payment of the installments.
(e) Additional Pay.--Any amount paid under this section is in
addition to any other pay and allowances to which an officer is
entitled.
(f) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a
written agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or
part of the amount payable under the agreement fails to
complete the total period of active duty specified in the
agreement, the Secretary concerned may require the officer to
repay the United States, to the extent that the Secretary
determines conditions and circumstances warrant, any or all
sums paid under this section.
(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the United
States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
less than five years after the termination of an agreement
entered into under subsection (b) does not discharge the
officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such
agreement or under paragraph (1).
(g) Regulations.--The Secretary concerned shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.
Sec. 322. Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for members entering
service on or after August 1, 1986
(a) Eligible Career Bonus Member Defined.--In this section,
the term ``eligible career bonus member'' means a member of a
uniformed service serving on active duty who--
(1) first became a member on or after August 1, 1986;
and
(2) has completed 15 years of active duty in the
uniformed services (or has received notification under
subsection (e) that the member is about to complete
that duty).
(b) Availability of Bonus.--The Secretary concerned shall pay
a bonus under this section to an eligible career bonus member
if the member--
(1) elects to receive the bonus under this section;
and
(2) executes a written agreement (prescribed by the
Secretary concerned) to remain continuously on active
duty until the member has completed 20 years of active-
duty service creditable under section 1405 of title 10,
if the member is not already obligated to remain on
active duty for a period that would result in at least
20 years of active-duty service.
(c) Election Method.--The election under subsection (b)(1)
shall be made in such form and within such period as the
Secretary concerned may prescribe. An election under such
subsection is irrevocable.
(d) Amount of Bonus; Payment.--(1) A bonus under this section
shall be paid in one lump sum of $30,000.
(2) The bonus shall be paid to an eligible career bonus
member not later than the first month that begins on or after
the date that is 60 days after the date on which the Secretary
concerned receives from the member the election required under
subsection (b)(1) and the written agreement required under
subsection (b)(2), if applicable.
(e) Notification of Eligibility.--(1) The Secretary concerned
shall transmit to each member who satisfies the definition of
eligible career bonus member a written notification of the
opportunity of the member to elect to receive a bonus under
this section. The Secretary shall provide the notification not
later than 180 days before the date on which the member will
complete 15 years of active duty.
(2) The notification shall include the following:
(A) The procedures for electing to receive the bonus.
(B) An explanation of the effects under sections
1401a, 1409, and 1410 of title 10 that such an election
has on the computation of any retired or retainer pay
that the member may become eligible to receive.
(f) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If a person paid a bonus under
this section fails to complete the total period of active duty
specified in subsection (b)(2), the person shall refund to the
United States the amount that bears the same ratio to the
amount of the bonus payment as the unserved part of that total
period bears to the total period.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), an obligation to reimburse the
United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a
debt owed to the United States.
(3) The Secretary concerned may waive, in whole or in part, a
refund required under paragraph (1) if the Secretary concerned
determines that recovery would be against equity and good
conscience or would be contrary to the best interests of the
United States.
(4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
less than five years after the termination of an agreement
under this section does not discharge the member signing such
agreement from a debt arising under the agreement or this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES
Sec.
401. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
435. Funeral honors duty: flat rate allowance.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i)(1) In the case of a member of a reserve component
performing active duty for training or inactive-duty training
who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation
allowances in connection with such duty under subsection (a),
the Secretary concerned may reimburse the member for housing
service charge expenses incurred by the member in occupying
transient government housing during the performance of such
duty. If transient government housing is unavailable, the
Secretary concerned may provide the member with lodging in kind
in the same manner as members entitled to such allowances under
subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
(3) The Secretary may pay service charge expenses under
paragraph (1) and expenses of providing lodging in kind under
such paragraph out of funds appropriated for operation and
maintenance for the reserve component concerned. Use of
Government charge cards is authorized for payment of these
expenses.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary lodging
expenses
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries
concerned, a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to
make a change of permanent station--
(1) from any duty station to a duty station in the
United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska); [or]
(2) from a duty station in the United States (other
than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station outside the
United States or in Hawaii or Alaska; or
(3) in the case of an enlisted member who is
reporting to the member's first permanent duty station,
from the member's home of record or initial technical
school to that first permanent duty station;
shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses actually
incurred by the member and the member's dependents while
occupying temporary quarters incident to that change of
permanent station. In the case of a change of permanent station
described in [clause (1)] paragraph (1) or (3), the period for
which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed
10 days. In the case of a change of permanent station described
in [clause (2)] paragraph (2), the period for which such
expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed five days
and such payment or reimbursement may be provided only for
expenses incurred before leaving the United States (other than
Hawaii or Alaska).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 411d. Travel and transportation allowances: transportation
incident to personal emergencies for certain
members and dependents
(a) * * *
(b)(1) In the case of a member stationed outside the
continental United States and the dependents of such a member,
transportation under this section may be provided from the
location of the member or dependents, at the time notification
of the personal emergency is received, or the member's
permanent duty station (and if the member's dependents reside
at another overseas location and receive a station allowance,
from that location)--
(A) to the international airport in the continental
United States closest to the location from which the
member and his dependents departed; [or]
(B) to any airport in the continental United States
to which travel can be arranged at the same or a lower
cost as travel obtained under subparagraph (A); or
[(B)] (C) to an airport in Alaska, Hawaii, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the
United States, or any other location outside the
continental United States, as determined by the
Secretary concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 435. Funeral honors duty: flat rate allowance
(a) Allowance Authorized.--Under uniform regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member of the Ready
Reserve of an armed force may be paid an allowance of $50, at
the discretion of the Secretary concerned, for funeral honors
duty performed pursuant to section 12305 of title 10 or section
115 of title 32, if the member is engaged in the performance of
that duty for at least two hours.
(b) Relation to Performance of Funeral Honors Duty.--The
allowance under this section shall constitute the single, flat-
rate monetary allowance authorized for the performance of
funeral honors duty pursuant to section 12503 of title 10 or
section 115 of title 32 and shall constitute payment in full to
the member, regardless of grade in which serving.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 9--LEAVE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 501. Payments for unused accrued leave
(a) In this section, the term ``discharge'' means--
(1) in the case of an enlisted member, separation or
release from active duty under honorable [conditions
or] conditions, appointment as an officer, or a
reenlistment of the member (regardless of when the
reenlistment occurs);
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) Payment may not be made under this subsection to a member
who is discharged for the purpose of accepting an appointment
or a warrant[, or entering into an enlistment,] in any
uniformed service.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19--ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1002. Additional training or duty without pay: Reserves and
members of National Guard
(a) * * *
(b)(1) A member who performs training or other duty without
pay under subsection (a) may, in the discretion of the
Secretary concerned, be authorized the travel and
transportation allowances prescribed by section 404 (a)-(d),
and (f), of this title for travel performed to and from that
training or duty, and, during the performance of that training
or duty, be furnished with subsistence and quarters in kind or
commutation thereof at a rate to be fixed by the Secretary
concerned.
(2) If a military technician (dual status), as described in
section 10216 of title 10, is performing active duty without
pay while on leave from technician employment, as authorized by
section 6323(d) of title 5, the Secretary concerned may
authorize the payment of a per diem allowance to the military
technician in lieu of commutation for subsistence and quarters
under paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1007. Deductions from pay
(a) * * *
(b) An amount due the United States from an enlisted member
of the Army or the Air Force for articles sold to him on credit
under section 4621(a)(1) or 9621(a)(1) of title 10, as the case
may be, shall be deducted from the next pay due him after the
sale is reported. [An amount due the United States from an
enlisted member of the Army or the Air Force for tobacco sold
to him by the United States under section 4623 or 9623 of title
10 shall be deducted from his pay in the manner provided for
the settlement of clothing accounts.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1009. Adjustments of monthly basic pay
(a) Adjustment Required.--(1) Whenever the General Schedule
of compensation for Federal classified employees, as contained
in section 5332 of title 5, is adjusted upward as provided in
section 5303 of such title, the President shall immediately
make an upward adjustment in the monthly basic pay authorized
members of the uniformed services by section 203(a) of this
title.
(2) On and after April 30, 1999, the actual basic pay for
commissioned officers in grades O-7 through O-10 may not exceed
the rate of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule, and
the actual basic pay for all other officers and enlisted
members may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the
Executive Schedule.
* * * * * * *
[(c) Equal Percentage Increase for All Members.--Subject to
subsection (d), an adjustment under this section shall provide
all eligible members with an increase in the monthly basic pay
which is of the same percentage as the overall average
percentage increase in the General Schedule rates of both basic
pay and locality pay for civilian employees.]
(c) Percentage Increase for All Members.--(1) Subject to
subsection (d), an adjustment taking effect under this section
during a fiscal year shall provide all eligible members with an
increase in the monthly basic pay by the percentage equal to
the sum of--
(A) 0.5 percent; plus
(B) the percentage calculated as provided under
section 5303(a) of title 5.
(2) The calculation required by paragraph (1)(B) shall be
made without regard to whether rates of pay under the statutory
pay systems (as defined in section 5302 of title 5) are
actually increased during that fiscal year under section 5303
of such title by the percentage so calculated.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
Subpart D--Pay and Allowances
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY RATES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5313. Positions at level II
Level II of the Executive Schedule applies to the following
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
[Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology.]
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5314. Positions at level III
Level III of the Executive Schedule applies to the following
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
Solicitor General of the United States.
* * * * * * *
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and
Material Readiness.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5373. Limitation on pay fixed by administrative action
[Except as provided] (a) Except as provided in subsection (b)
and by the Government Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964 (78
Stat. 400) and notwithstanding the provisions of other
statutes, the head of an Executive agency or military
department who is authorized to fix by administrative action
the annual rate of basic pay for a position or employee may not
fix the rate at more than the rate for level IV of the
Executive Schedule. This section does not impair the
authorities provided by--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Subsection (a) shall not affect the authority of the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department
to fix the pay of a civilian employee paid from nonappropriated
funds, except that the annual rate of basic pay (including any
portion of such pay attributable to comparability with private-
sector pay in a locality) of such an employee may not be fixed
at a rate greater than the rate for level III of the Executive
Schedule.
* * * * * * *
Subpart E--Attendance and Leave
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 63--LEAVE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6304. Annual leave; accumulation
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the deployment of an
emergency essential employee of the Department of Defense to a
combat zone outside the United States shall be deemed an
exigency of the public business, and any leave that is lost by
an employee as a result of such deployment (regardless of
whether such leave was scheduled) shall be--
(i) restored to the employee; and
(ii) credited and available in accordance with
paragraph (2).
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``Department of
Defense emergency essential employee''--
(i) means a civilian employee of the Department of
Defense, including a nonappropriated fund
instrumentality employee (as defined by section
1587(a)(1) of title 10) whose assigned duties and
responsibilities would be necessary during a period
that follows the evacuation of nonessential personnel
during a declared emergency or the outbreak of combat
operations or war; and
(ii) includes an employee who is hired on a temporary
or permanent basis.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER PAID LEAVE
Sec. 6323. Military leave; Reserves and National Guardsmen
(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, an
employee as defined by section 2105 of this title or an
individual employed by the government of the District of
Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, is entitled to
leave without loss in pay, time, or performance or efficiency
rating for active duty, inactive-duty training (as defined in
section 101 of title 37), or engaging in field or coast defense
training under sections 502-505 of title 32 as a Reserve of the
armed forces or member of the National Guard. Leave under this
subsection accrues for an employee or individual at the rate of
15 days per fiscal year and, to the extent that it is not used
in a fiscal year, accumulates for use in the succeeding fiscal
year until it totals 15 days at the beginning of a fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) A military reserve technician described in section
8401(30) is entitled at such person's request to leave without
loss of, or reduction in, pay, leave to which such person is
otherwise entitled, credit for time or service, or performance
or efficiency rating for each day, not to exceed 44 workdays in
a calendar year, in which such person is on active duty without
pay, as authorized pursuant to section 12315 of title 10, under
section 12301(b) or 12301(d) of title 10 (other than active
duty during a war or national emergency declared by the
President or Congress) for participation in [noncombat]
operations outside the United States, its territories and
possessions.
* * * * * * *
Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT
Sec. 8334. Deductions, contributions, and deposits
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Each employee or Member credited with civilian service
after July 31, 1920, for which retirement deductions or
deposits have not been made, may deposit with interest an
amount equal to the following percentages of his basic pay
received for that service:
Percentage of basic pay
Service period
Employee............................... 2\1/2\................... August 1, 1920, to June 30, 1926.
3\1/2\................... July 1, 1926, to June 30, 1942.
5........................ July 1, 1942, to June 30, 1948.
6........................ July 1, 1948, to October 31, 1956.
6\1/2\................... November 1, 1956, to December 31, 1969.
* * * * * * *
Nuclear materials courier.............. 7........................ October 1, 1977 [to the day before the date
of the enactment of the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999] to October 16, 1998.
7.5...................... [The date of the enactment of the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999] October 17, 1998 to
December 31, 1998.
7.75..................... January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999.
7.9...................... January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000.
8........................ January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.
7.5...................... After December 31, 2002.
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection and
any provision of section 206(b)(3) of the Federal Employees'
Retirement Contribution Temporary Adjustment Act of 1983, the
percentage of basic pay required under this subsection in the
case of an individual described in section 8402(b)(2) shall,
with respect to any covered service (as defined by section
203(a)(3) of such Act) performed by such individual after
December 31, 1983, and before January 1, 1987, be equal to 1.3
percent, and, with respect to any such service performed after
December 31, 1986, be equal to the amount that would have been
deducted from the employee's basic pay under subsection (k) of
this section if the employee's pay had been subject to that
subsection during such period.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8337. Disability retirement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) As used in this subsection, the term ``technician''
means an individual employed under section 709(a) of title 32
or section 10216 of title 10, who, as a condition of the
employment, is required under section 709(b) of [such title to
be a member of the National Guard and to hold a specified
military grade.] title 32 or section 10216 of title 10,
respectively, to be a member of the Selected Reserve.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph, an individual shall be retired under this section if
the individual--
(i) is separated from employment as a technician
under section 709(e)(1) of title 32 or section 10216 of
title 10 by reason of a disability that disqualifies
the individual from membership in the [National Guard
or from holding the military grade required for such
employment] Selected Reserve;
* * * * * * *
(3) Any individual applying for or receiving any annuity
pursuant to this subsection shall, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Office, be considered by any
agency of the Government before any vacant position in the
agency is filled if--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) the position is at the same grade or equivalent
level as the position from which the individual was
separated under section 709(e)(1) of title 32 or
section 10216 of title 10.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 84--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--BASIC ANNUITY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8414. Early retirement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) A military reserve technician who is separated from
technician service, after becoming 50 years of age and
completing 25 years of service, by reason of ceasing to satisfy
the condition described in section 8401(30)(B) is entitled to
an annuity.]
(c) Permanent Limitations on Number.--(1) Effective October
1, 2007, the total number of non-dual status technicians
employed by the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve may not
exceed 175. If at any time after the preceding sentence takes
effect the number of non-dual status technicians employed by
the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve exceeds the number
specified in the limitation in the preceding sentence, the
Secretary of Defense shall require that the Secretary of the
Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate
steps to reduce the number of such technicians in order to
comply with such limitation.
(2) Effective October 1, 2001, the total number of non-dual
status technicians employed by the National Guard may not
exceed 1,950. If at any time after the preceding sentence takes
effect the number of non-dual status technicians employed by
the National Guard exceeds the number specified in the
limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense
shall require that the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary
of the Air Force, or both, take immediate steps to reduce the
number of such technicians in order to comply with such
limitation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8422. Deductions from pay; contributions for military service
(a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The applicable percentage under this paragraph for
civilian service shall be as follows:
* * * * * * *
Employee................................ 7...................... January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
7.25................... January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.4.................... January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
7.5.................... January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2002.
7...................... After December 31, 2002.
Nuclear materials courier............... 7...................... January 1, 1987 [to the day before the date
of the enactment of the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999.] to October 16, 1998
7.5.................... [The date of the enactment of the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999] October 17, 1998 to
December 31, 1998.]
7.75................... January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999.
7.9.................... January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000.
8...................... January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001.
7.5.................... After December 31, 2002.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1--ORGANIZATION
Sec.
101. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
[114. Honor guard functions at funerals for veterans.]
114. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans.
115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 113. Federal financial assistance for support of additional duties
assigned to the Army National Guard
(a) * * *
(b) Covered Activities.--(1) * * *
(2) Paragraph (1)(B) does not apply to an activity that, on
[the date of the enactment of this subsection] October 17,
1998, was performed for the Federal Government by employees of
the Federal Government or employees of a State.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 114. Honor guard functions at funerals for veterans]
Sec. 114. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans
Subject to such regulations and restrictions as may be
prescribed by the Secretary concerned, the performance of
[honor guard] funeral honors functions by members of the
National Guard at funerals for veterans of the armed forces may
be treated by the Secretary concerned as a Federal function for
which appropriated funds may be used. Any such performance of
[honor guard] funeral honors functions at such a funeral may
not be considered to be a period of drill or training
[otherwise required], but may be performed as funeral honors
duty as prescribed in section 115 of this title.
Sec. 115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,
a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the
Air National Guard of the United States may be ordered to
funeral honors duty, with the consent of the member, to prepare
for or perform funeral honors functions at the funeral of a
veteran (as defined in section 1491 of title 10).
(b) A member ordered to funeral honors duty under this
section shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours of
such duty in order to receive service credit under section
1273(a)(2)(E) of title 10 and compensation under section 435 of
title 37 if authorized by the Secretary concerned.
(c) Funeral honors duty (and travel directly to and from that
duty) under this section shall be treated as the equivalent of
inactive-duty training (and travel directly to and from that
training) for the purposes of this section and the provisions
of title 10, title 37, and title 38, including provisions
relating to the determination of eligibility for and the
receipt of benefits and entitlements provided under those
titles for Reserves performing inactive-duty training and for
their dependents and survivors, except that a member is not
entitled by reason of performance of funeral honors duty to any
allowances, or other compensation provided for in title 37
other than that provided in section 435 of that title and in
subsection (d).
(d) A member who performs funeral honors duty under this
section is entitled to reimbursement for travel and
transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with such duty
as authorized under chapter 7 of title 37, if such duty is
performed at a location 50 miles or more from the member's
residence.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for
civilian youth
[(a) Program Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary of
Defense, acting through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,
may conduct a National Guard civilian youth opportunities
program (to be known as the ``National Guard Challenge
Program'') to use the National Guard to provide military-based
training, including supervised work experience in community
service and conservation projects, to civilian youth who cease
to attend secondary school before graduating so as to improve
the life skills and employment potential of such youth.]
(a) Program Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary of Defense,
acting through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, may use
the National Guard to conduct a civilian youth opportunities
program, to be known as the ``National Guard Challenge
Program'', which shall consist of at least a 22-week
residential program and a 12-month post-residential mentoring
period. The National Guard Challenge Program shall seek to
improve life skills and employment potential of participants by
providing military-based training and supervised work
experience, together with the core program components of
assisting participants to receive a high school diploma or its
equivalent, leadership development, promoting fellowship and
community service, developing life coping skills and job
skills, and improving physical fitness and health and hygiene.
(b) Conduct of the Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall
provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program
in such States as the Secretary considers to be appropriate,
except that Federal expenditures under the program may not
exceed [$50,000,000] $62,500,000 for any fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 709. Technicians: employment, use, status
[(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, and
subject to subsection (b) of this section persons may be
employed as technicians in--
[(1) the administration and training of the National
Guard; and
[(2) the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to
the National Guard or the armed forces.
[(b) A technician employed under subsection (a) shall, while
so employed--
[(1) be a member of the National Guard;
[(2) hold the military grade specified by the
Secretary concerned for that position; and
[(3) wear the uniform appropriate for the member's
grade and component of the armed forces while
performing duties as a technician.
[(c) The Secretary concerned shall designate the adjutants
general referred to in section 314 of this title, to employ and
administer the technicians authorized by this section.
[(d) A technician employed under subsection (a) is an
employee of the Department of the Army or the Department of the
Air Force, as the case may be, and an employee of the United
States. However, a position authorized by this section is
outside the competitive service if the technician employed
therein is required under subsection (b) to be a member of the
National Guard.
[(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned--
[(1) a technician who is employed in a position in
which National Guard membership is required as a
condition of employment and who is separated from the
National Guard or ceases to hold the military grade
specified for his position by the Secretary concerned
shall be promptly separated from his technician
employment by the adjutant general of the jurisdiction
concerned;
[(2) a technician who is employed in a position in
which National Guard membership is required as a
condition of employment and who fails to meet the
military security standards established by the
Secretary concerned for a member of a reserve component
of the armed force under his jurisdiction may be
separated from his employment as a technician and
concurrently discharged from the National Guard by the
adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned;
[(3) a technician may, at any time, be separated from
his technician employment for cause by the adjutant
general of the jurisdiction concerned;
[(4) a reduction in force, removal, or an adverse
action involving discharge from technician employment,
suspension, furlough without pay, or reduction in rank
or compensation shall be accomplished by the adjutant
general of the jurisdiction concerned;
[(5) a right of appeal which may exist with respect
to clause (1), (2), (3), or (4) shall not extend beyond
the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned; and
[(6) a technician shall be notified in writing of the
termination of his employment as a technician and,
unless the technician is serving under a temporary
appointment, is serving in a trial or probationary
period, or has voluntarily ceased to be a member of the
National Guard when such membership is a condition of
employment, such notification shall be given at least
30 days before the termination date of such employment.
[(f) Sections 2108, 3502, 7511, and 7512 of title 5 do not
apply to any person employed under this section.
[(g)(1) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title
5 or any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may,
in the case of technicians assigned to perform operational
duties at air defense sites--
[(A) prescribe the hours of duties;
[(B) fix the rates of basic compensation; and
[(C) fix the rates of additional compensation;
to reflect unusual tours of duty, irregular additional duty,
and work on days that are ordinarily nonworkdays. Additional
compensation under this subsection may be fixed on an annual
basis and is determined as an appropriate percentage, not in
excess of 12 percent, of such part of the rate of basic pay for
the position as does not exceed the minimum rate of basic pay
for GS-10 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title
5.
[(2) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title 5
or any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may, for
technicians other than those described in paragraph (1),
prescribe the hours of duty for technicians. Notwithstanding
sections 5542 and 5543 of title 5 or any other provision of
law, such technicians shall be granted an amount of
compensatory time off from their scheduled tour of duty equal
to the amount of any time spent by them in irregular or
overtime work, and shall not be entitled to compensation for
such work.
[(i) The Secretary concerned may not prescribe for purposes
of eligibility for Federal recognition under section 301 of
this title a qualification applicable to technicians employed
under subsection (a) that is not applicable pursuant to that
section to the other members of the National Guard in the same
grade, branch, position, and type of unit or organization
involved.]
Sec. 709. Technicians: employment, use, status
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army
or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, and
subject to subsections (b) and (c), persons may be employed as
technicians in--
(1) the administration and training of the National
Guard; and
(2) the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to
the National Guard or the armed forces.
(b) Except as authorized in subsection (c), a person employed
under subsection (a) must meet each of the following
requirements:
(1) Be a military technician (dual status) as defined
in section 10216(a) of title 10.
(2) Be a member of the National Guard.
(3) Hold the military grade specified by the
Secretary concerned for that position.
(4) While performing duties as a military technician
(dual status), wear the uniform appropriate for the
member's grade and component of the armed forces .
(c)(1) A person may be employed under subsection (a) as a
non-dual status technician (as defined by section 10217 of
title 10) if the technician position occupied by the person has
been designated by the Secretary concerned to be filled only by
a non-dual status technician.
(2) The total number of non-dual status technicians in the
National Guard is specified in section 10217(c)(2) of title 10.
(d) The Secretary concerned shall designate the adjutants
general referred to in section 314 of this title to employ and
administer the technicians authorized by this section.
(e) A technician employed under subsection (a) is an employee
of the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air
Force, as the case may be, and an employee of the United
States. However, a position authorized by this section is
outside the competitive service if the technician employed in
that position is required under subsection (b) to be a member
of the National Guard.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned--
(1) a person employed under subsection (a) who is a
military technician (dual status) and otherwise subject
to the requirements of subsection (b) who--
(A) is separated from the National Guard or
ceases to hold the military grade specified by
the Secretary concerned for that position shall
be promptly separated from military technician
(dual status) employment by the adjutant
general of the jurisdiction concerned; and
(B) fails to meet the military security
standards established by the Secretary
concerned for a member of a reserve component
under his jurisdiction may be separated from
employment as a military technician (dual
status) and concurrently discharged from the
National Guard by the adjutant general of the
jurisdiction concerned;
(2) a technician may, at any time, be separated from
his technician employment for cause by the adjutant
general of the jurisdiction concerned;
(3) a reduction in force, removal, or an adverse
action involving discharge from technician employment,
suspension, furlough without pay, or reduction in rank
or compensation shall be accomplished by the adjutant
general of the jurisdiction concerned;
(4) a right of appeal which may exist with respect to
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall not extend beyond the
adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned; and
(5) a technician shall be notified in writing of the
termination of his employment as a technician and,
unless the technician is serving under a temporary
appointment, is serving in a trial or probationary
period, or has voluntarily ceased to be a member of the
National Guard when such membership is a condition of
employment, such notification shall be given at least
30 days before the termination date of such employment.
(g) Sections 2108, 3502, 7511, and 7512 of title 5 do not
apply to a person employed under this section.
(h) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title 5
or any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may
prescribe the hours of duty for technicians. Notwithstanding
sections 5542 and 5543 of title 5 or any other provision of
law, such technicians shall be granted an amount of
compensatory time off from their scheduled tour of duty equal
to the amount of any time spent by them in irregular or
overtime work, and shall not be entitled to compensation for
such work.
(i) The Secretary concerned may not prescribe for purposes of
eligibility for Federal recognition under section 301 of this
title a qualification applicable to technicians employed under
subsection (a) that is not applicable pursuant to that section
to the other members of the National Guard in the same grade,
branch, position, and type of unit or organization involved.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1992 AND 1993
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
Part B--Reserve Forces
* * * * * * *
SEC. 414. [PILOT] PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE COMPONENT SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.
(a) [Pilot] Program Required.--The Secretary of the Army
shall carry out a [pilot] program to provide active component
advisers to combat units, combat support units, and combat
service support units in the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve that have a high priority for deployment on a time-
phased troop deployment list or have another contingent high
priority for deployment. The advisers shall be assigned to
full-time duty in connection with organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training such units.
* * * * * * *
(c) Personnel To Be Assigned.--(1) The Secretary shall assign
not less than [2,000] 5,000 active component personnel to serve
as advisers under the program. [After September 30, 1996, the
number under the preceding sentence shall be increased to not
less than 5,000.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Part B--Service Academies
[SEC. 511. LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF CADETS AND MIDSHIPMEN AUTHORIZED
TO ATTEND THE SERVICE ACADEMIES.
[(a) Reduction in Authorized Strengths.--The authorized
strength of the Corps of Cadets of the United States Military
Academy, the Air Force Cadets of the United States Air Force
Academy, and the brigade of midshipmen of the United States
Naval Academy may not exceed 4,000 for each service academy for
class years beginning after 1994.
[(b) Class Reductions Not To Affect Certain Appointments.--
Any reduction in the number of appointments to the class of a
service academy required as a result of subsection (a) may not
be achieved by reducing the number of appointments under
section 4342(a), 6954(a), or 9342(a) of title 10, United States
Code, as applicable.
[(c) GAO Report.--(1) The Comptroller General of the United
States shall determine for each of the Army, Navy, Air Force,
and Marine Corps the percentage for each benchmark year of the
commissioned officers receiving an original appointment during
that year who were graduates of a service academy. The
Comptroller General shall also determine the average of those
annual percentages for each of those Armed Forces.
[(2) The Comptroller General shall select the benchmark years
(including the number of years to be used as benchmark years)
for purposes of paragraph (1). The Comptroller General may
select different benchmark years for each of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Marine Corps. Each year selected as a benchmark
year shall be one for which the active duty strength of the
Armed Force concerned was approximately the authorized end
strength established by law for that Armed Force for members on
active duty for fiscal year 1995.
[(3) Not later than February 15, 1992, the Comptroller
General shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives a report describing the
results of the determinations of the Comptroller General under
paragraph (1).
[(d) Service Academy Defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``service academy'' means the United States Military
Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, or the United
States Naval Academy.
[(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 531 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (104 Stat. 1563;
10 U.S.C. 4342 note) is repealed.]
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Matters
731. Chiropractic health care demonstration program.
731. Chiropractic health care.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 558. MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.
[(a) Denial of Funds.--(1) No funds available to the
Department of Defense or the Department of Transportation may
be provided by grant or contract to any institution of higher
education that has a policy of denying, or which effectively
prevents, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of
Transportation from obtaining for military recruiting
purposes--
[(A) entry to campuses or access to students on
campuses; or
[(B) access to directory information pertaining to
students.
[(2) Students referred to in paragraph (1) are individuals
who are 17 years of age or older.
[(b) Procedures for Determination.--The Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the
Secretary of Transportation, shall prescribe regulations that
contain procedures for determining if and when an educational
institution has denied or prevented access to students or
information described in subsection (a).
[(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``directory information'' means, with respect to a student, the
student's name, address, telephone listing, date and place of
birth, level of education, degrees received, and the most
recent previous educational institution enrolled in by the
student.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Matters
SEC. 731. CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE [DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM].
(a) Requirement for Program.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) During fiscal year 2000, the Secretary shall continue to
furnish the same chiropractic care in the military medical
treatment facilities designated pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) as
the chiropractic care furnished during the demonstration
program.
* * * * * * *
(c) Reporting Requirements.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Not later than January 30, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the [Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives] Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report that identifies the
additional treatment facilities designated to furnish
chiropractic care under the program that were not so designated
before the report required by paragraph (1) was prepared,
together with the plan for the conduct of the program at the
additional treatment facilities.
* * * * * * *
(5) Not later than [May 1, 2000] January 31, 2000, the
Secretary shall submit to the committees referred to in
paragraph (3) a final report in accordance with the plan
submitted pursuant to paragraph (2).
(d) Oversight Advisory Committee.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The oversight advisory committee shall assist the
Secretary of Defense regarding--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) the preparation of the reports required under
subsection (c); [and]
(D) the evaluation of the program[.]; and
(E) if the Secretary submits an implementation plan
pursuant to subsection (e), the preparation of such
plan.
* * * * * * *
(5) The Secretary shall--
(A) make full use of the oversight advisory committee
in preparing--
(i) the final report on the demonstration
program conducted under this section; and
(ii) the implementation plan described in
subsection (e); and
(B) provide opportunities for members of the
committee to provide views as part of such final report
and plan.
(e) Implementation Plan.--If the Secretary of Defense
recommends in the final report submitted under subsection (c)
that chiropractic health care services should be offered in
medical care facilities of the Armed Forces or as a health care
service covered under the TRICARE program, the Secretary shall,
not later than March 31, 2000, submit to the Committees on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate
an implementation plan for the full integration of chiropractic
health care services into the military health care system of
the Department of Defense, including the TRICARE program. Such
implementation plan shall include--
(1) a detailed analysis of the projected costs of
fully integrating chiropractic health care services
into the military health care system;
(2) the proposed scope of practice for chiropractors
who would provide services to covered beneficiaries
under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code;
(3) the proposed military medical treatment
facilities at which such services would be provided;
(4) the military readiness requirements for
chiropractors who would provide services to such
covered beneficiaries; and
(5) any other relevant factors that the Secretary
considers appropriate.
[(e)] (f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
base closure law'' means each of the following:
(1) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note).
(2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments
and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-
526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(3) Section 2687 of title 10, United States Code.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 514 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND
EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
[Sec. 514. (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access
to Campus.--None of the funds made available in this or any
other Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for any
fiscal year may be provided by contract or by grant (including
a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to a covered
educational entity if the Secretary of Defense determines that
the covered educational entity has a policy or practice
(regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in
effect prevents--
[(1) the maintaining, establishing, or operation of a
unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in
accordance with section 654 of title 10, United States
Code, and other applicable Federal laws) at the covered
educational entity; or
[(2) a student at the covered educational entity from
enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer
Training Corps at another institution of higher
education.
[(b) Denial of Funds for Preventing Federal Military
Recruiting on Campus.--None of the funds made available in this
or any other Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for any
fiscal year may be provided by contract or by grant (including
a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to a covered
educational entity if the Secretary of Defense determines that
the covered educational entity has a policy or practice
(regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in
effect prevents--
[(1) entry to campuses, or access to students (who
are 17 years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes
of Federal military recruiting; or
[(2) access by military recruiters for purposes of
Federal military recruiting to the following
information pertaining to students (who are 17 years of
age or older) enrolled at the covered educational
entity:
[(A) student names, addresses, and telephone
listings; and
[(B) if known, student ages, levels of
education, and majors.
[(c) Exceptions.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) or (b) shall not apply to a covered educational entity if
the Secretary of Defense determines that--
[(1) the covered educational entity has ceased the
policy or practice described in such subsection;
[(2) the institution of higher education involved has
a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical
religious affiliation; or
[(3) the institution of higher education involved is
prohibited by the law of any State, or by the order of
any State court, from allowing Senior Reserve Officer
Training Corps activities or Federal military
recruiting on campus, except that this paragraph shall
apply only during the one-year period beginning on the
effective date of this section.
[(d) Notice of Determinations.--Whenever the Secretary of
Defense makes a determination under subsection (a), (b), or
(c), the Secretary--
[(1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to
the Secretary of Education and to the Congress; and
[(2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice
of the determination and the effect of the
determination on the eligibility of the covered
educational entity for contracts and grants.
[(e) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--The Secretary
of Defense shall publish in the Federal Register once every 6
months a list of each covered educational entity that is
currently ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a
determination of the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b).
[(f) Covered Educational Entity.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``covered educational entity'' means an
institution of higher education, or a subelement of an
institution of higher education.
[(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon
the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, by which date the Secretary of
Defense shall have published final regulations in consultation
with the Secretary of Education to carry out this section.]
----------
SECTION 213 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
presentation of united states flag upon retirement
Sec. 213. (a) Upon the release of an officer of the
commissioned corps of the Service from active commissioned
service for retirement, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall present a United States flag to the officer.
(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--An officer is not
eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the
officer has previously been presented a flag under this section
or any other provision of law providing for the presentation of
a United States flag incident to release from active service
for retirement.
(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag under
this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 25 OF THE COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS' ACT
OF 1948
Sec. 25. (a) Upon the release of a commissioned officer from
active commissioned service for retirement, the Secretary of
Commerce shall present a United States flag to the officer.
(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--An officer is not
eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the
officer has previously been presented a flag under this section
or any other provision of law providing for the presentation of
a United States flag incident to release from active service
for retirement.
(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag under
this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.
----------
SECTION 516 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 516. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement
(a) * * *
(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not
eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if
the member has previously been presented a flag [under this
section or section 3681, 6141, and 8681 of title 10.] under
this section or any other provision of law providing for the
presentation of a United States flag incident to release from
active service for retirement.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 17 OF THE CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
Sec. 17. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(q) The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Defense, if so requested by the
Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of carrying out the
overseas special supplemental food program established under
section 1060a(a) of title 10, United States Code.
----------
SECTION 4202 OF THE CLINGER-COHEN ACT OF 1996
SEC. 4202. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL
ITEMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Effective Date.--The authority to issue solicitations for
purchases of commercial items in excess of the simplified
acquisition threshold pursuant to the special simplified
procedures authorized by section 2304(g)(1) of title 10, United
States Code, section 303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, and section 31(a) of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended by this
section, shall expire [three years after the date on which such
amendments take effect pursuant to section 4401(b)] January 1,
2002. Contracts may be awarded pursuant to solicitations that
have been issued.
----------
SECTION 834 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS
1990 AND 1991
SEC. 834. TEST PROGRAM FOR NEGOTIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SMALL BUSINESS
SUBCONTRACTING PLANS
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Test Program Period.--The test program authorized by
subsection (a) shall begin on October 1, 1990, unless Congress
adopts a resolution disapproving the test program. The test
program shall terminate on September 30, [2000.] 2003.
----------
SECTION 845 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1994
SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY TO CARRY
OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Exercise of Authority.--(1) Subsections [(e)(2) and
(e)(3) of such section 2371] (e)(1)(B) and (e)(2) of such
section 2371 shall not apply to projects carried out under
subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992
SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates
at the close of fiscal year [1999] 2000.
----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts
appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act
for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization Pueblo Chemical [$179,000,000]
Program...................... Activity, Colorado... $203,500,000
Defense Finance & Accounting Charleston, South $6,200,000
Service...................... Carolina.............
-----------------
Total:.............. [$525,454,000]
$549,954,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) * * *
(2) [$179,000,000] $203,500,000 (the balance of the
amount authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for
the construction of a chemical demilitarization
facility at Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado); and
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 2906 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990
SEC. 2906. ACCOUNT
(a) In General.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The Account shall be closed at the time and in the manner
provided for appropriation accounts under section 1555 of title
31, United States Code. Unobligated funds which remain in the
Account upon closure shall be held by the Secretary of the
Treasury until transferred by law after the congressional
defense committees receive the final report transmitted under
subsection (c)(2).
(b) Use of Funds.--(1) The Secretary may use the funds in the
Account only for the purposes described in section 2905 or,
after September 30, 1995, for environmental restoration and
property management and disposal at installations closed or
realigned under title II of the Defense Authorization
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law
100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note). After July 13, 2001, the Account
shall be the sole source of Federal funds for environmental
restoration, property management, and other caretaker costs
associated with any real property at military installations
closed or realigned under this part or such title II.
* * * * * * *
(c) Reports.--(1)(A) * * *
[(2) Unobligated funds which remain in the Account after the
termination of the authority of the Secretary to carry out a
closure or realignment under this part shall be held in the
Account until transferred by law after the congressional
defense committees receive the report transmitted under
paragraph (3).]
[(3)] (2) No later than 60 days after the termination of the
authority of the Secretary to carry out a closure or
realignment under this part and no later than 60 days after the
closure of the Account under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary
shall transmit to the congressional defense committees a report
containing an accounting of--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Account Exclusive Source of Funds for Environmental
Restoration Projects.--Except for funds deposited into the
Account under subsection (a), funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense may not be used for purposes described in
section 2905(a)(1)(C). The prohibition in this subsection shall
expire upon [the termination of the authority of the Secretary
to carry out a closure or realignment under this part] the
closure of the Account under subsection (a)(3).
----------
SECTION 2922 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1996
SEC. 2922. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT ARSENAL FOR A COUNTY
LANDFILL.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Condition on Conveyance.--(1) The conveyance shall be
subject to the condition that the Department of the Army, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of
Agriculture (or their agents or assigns) may use the landfill
established on the real property conveyed under subsection (a)
for the disposal of construction debris, refuse, and other
materials related to any restoration and cleanup of Arsenal
property. Such use shall be subject to applicable environmental
laws and at no cost to the Federal Government.
(2) The landfill established on the real property conveyed
under subsection (a) may contain only waste generated in the
county in which the landfill is established and waste generated
in municipalities located at least in part in that county. The
landfill shall be closed and capped after 23 years of
operation.
----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts
appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act
for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization Pueblo Chemical [$179,000,000]
Program...................... Activity, Colorado... $203,500,000
Defense Finance & Accounting Charleston, South $6,200,000
Service...................... Carolina.............
* * * * * * *
-----------------
Total:.............. [$525,454,000]
$549,954,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) * * *
(2) [$179,000,000] $203,500,000 (the balance of the
amount authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for
the construction of a chemical demilitarization
facility at Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado); and
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 3132 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1991
SEC. 3132. LABORATORY-DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Funding.--Of the funds provided by the Department of
Energy to such laboratories for national security activities,
the Secretary shall provide a specific amount, not to exceed [6
percent] 3 percent of such funds, to be used by such
laboratories for laboratory-directed research and development.
* * * * * * *
----------
DIVISION C OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1996
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3140. FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS CRITICAL TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a
fellowship program for the development of skills critical to
the ongoing mission of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons
complex. Under the fellowship program, [the Secretary shall--
[(1) provide educational assistance] the Secretary
shall provide educational assistance and research
assistance to eligible individuals to facilitate the
development by such individuals of skills critical to
maintaining the ongoing mission of the Department of
Energy nuclear weapons complex[;].
[(2) employ eligible individuals at the facilities
described in subsection (c) in order to facilitate the
development of such skills by these individuals; or
[(3) provide eligible individuals with the assistance
and the employment.]
(b) Eligible Individuals.--Individuals eligible for
participation in the fellowship program are United States
citizens who are the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Covered Facilities.--The Secretary shall carry out the
fellowship program at or in connection with the following
facilities:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, California.
(6) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico.
(7) The Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
* * * * * * *
[(f) Funding.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1996 under section
3101(b), $10,000,000 may be used for the purpose of carrying
out the fellowship program under this section.]
(f) Agreement.--(1) The Secretary may allow an individual to
participate in the program only if the individual signs an
agreement described in paragraph (2).
(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) shall be in
writing, shall be signed by the participant, and shall include
the participant's agreement to serve, after completion of the
course of study for which the assistance was provided, as a
full-time employee in a position in the Department of Energy
for a period of time to be established by the Secretary of
Energy of not less than one year, if such a position is offered
to the participant.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Disposals and Use of Funds
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 3303. DISPOSAL OF CHROMITE AND MANGANESE ORES AND CHROMIUM FERRO
AND MANGANESE METAL ELECTROLYTIC.
[(a) Domestic Upgrading.--In offering to enter into
agreements pursuant to any provision of law for the disposal
from the National Defense Stockpile of chromite and manganese
ores or chromium ferro and manganese metal electrolytic, the
President shall give a right of first refusal on all such
offers to domestic ferroalloy upgraders.
[(b) Domestic Ferroalloy Upgrader Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``domestic ferroalloy upgrader'' means a
company or other business entity that, as determined by the
President--
[(1) is engaged in operations to upgrade chromite or
manganese ores of metallurgical grade or chromium ferro
and manganese metal electrolytic; and
[(2) conducts a significant level of its research,
development, engineering, and upgrading operations in
the United States.
[SEC. 3304. RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSAL OF MANGANESE FERRO.
[(a) Disposal of Lower Grade Material First.--The President
may not dispose of high carbon manganese ferro in the National
Defense Stockpile that meets the National Defense Stockpile
classification of Grade One, Specification 30(a), as revised on
May 22, 1992, until completing the disposal of all manganese
ferro in the National Defense Stockpile that does not meet such
classification. The President may not reclassify manganese
ferro in the National Defense Stockpile after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
[(b) Requirement for Remelting by Domestic Ferroalloy
Producers.--Manganese ferro in the National Defense Stockpile
that does not meet the classification specified in subsection
(a) may be sold only for remelting by a domestic ferroalloy
producer unless the President determines that a domestic
ferroalloy producer is not available to acquire the material.
[(c) Domestic Ferroalloy Producer Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``domestic ferroalloy producer'' means a
company or other business entity that, as determined by the
President--
[(1) is engaged in operations to upgrade manganese
ores of metallurgical grade or manganese ferro; and
[(2) conducts a significant level of its research,
development, engineering, and upgrading operations in
the United States.]
* * * * * * *
----------
MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936
TITLE XI--FEDERAL SHIP MORTGAGE INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1108. [(a) If the proceeds of an obligation guaranteed
under this title are to be used to finance the construction,
reconstruction, or reconditioning of a vessel or vessels which
will serve as security for the guarantee of the Secretary, the
Secretary is authorized to accept and hold, in escrow under an
escrow agreement with the obligor, a portion of the proceeds of
all obligations guaranteed under this title whose proceeds are
to be so used which is equal to: (i) the excess of the
principal amount of all obligations whose proceeds are to be so
used over 75 per centum, or 87\1/2\ per centum, whichever is
applicable under section 1104 of this title, of the amount paid
by or for the account of the obligor for the construction,
reconstruction, or reconditioning of the vessel or vessels;
(ii) with such interest thereon, if any, as the Secretary may
require: Provided, That in the event the security for the]
(a) Authority To Hold Obligation Proceeds in Escrow.--(1) If
the proceeds of an obligation guaranteed under this title are
to be used to finance the construction, reconstruction, or
reconditioning of a vessel that will serve as security for the
guarantee, the Secretary may accept and hold, in escrow under
an escrow agreement with the obligor--
(A) the proceeds of that obligation, including such
interest as may be earned thereon; and
(B) if required by the Secretary, an amount equal to
6 month's interest on the obligation.
(2) The Secretary may release funds held in escrow under
paragraph (1) only if the Secretary determines that--
(A) the obligor has paid its portion of the actual
cost of construction, reconstruction, or
reconditioning; and
(B) the funds released are needed--
(i) to pay, or make reimbursements in
connection with payments previously made for
work performed in that construction,
reconstruction, or reconditioning; or
(ii) to pay for other costs approved by the
Secretary, with respect to the vessel or
vessels.
(3) If the security for the guarantee of an obligation by the
Secretary relates both to a vessel or vessels to be
constructed, reconstructed or reconditioned and to a delivered
vessel or vessels, the principal amount of such obligation
shall be prorated for purposes of this subsection (a) under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
SEC. 1109. DEPOSIT FUND.
(a) Establishment of Deposit Fund.--There is established in
the Treasury a deposit fund for purposes of this section. The
Secretary may, in accordance with an agreement under subsection
(b), deposit into and hold in the deposit fund cash belonging
to an obligor to serve as collateral for a guarantee under this
title made with respect to the obligor.
(b) Agreement.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and an obligor shall
enter into a reserve fund or other collateral account
agreement to govern the deposit, withdrawal, retention,
use, and reinvestment of cash of the obligor held in
the deposit fund established by subsection (a).
(2) Terms.--The agreement shall contain such terms
and conditions as are required under this section and
such additional terms as are considered by the
Secretary to be necessary to protect fully the
interests of the United States.
(3) Security interest of united states.--The
agreement shall include terms that grant to the United
States a security interest in all amounts deposited
into the deposit fund.
(c) Investment.--The Secretary may invest and reinvest any
part of the amounts in the deposit fund established by
subsection (a) in obligations of the United States with such
maturities as ensure that amounts in the deposit fund will be
available as required for purposes of agreements under
subsection (b). Cash balances of the deposit fund in excess of
current requirements shall be maintained in a form of
uninvested funds and the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay
interest on these funds.
(d) Withdrawals.--
(1) In general.--The cash deposited into the deposit
fund established by subsection (a) may not be withdrawn
without the consent of the Secretary.
(2) Use of income.--Subject to paragraph (3), the
Secretary may pay any income earned on cash of an
obligor deposited into the deposit fund in accordance
with the terms of the agreement with the obligor under
subsection (b).
(3) Retention against default.--The Secretary may
retain and offset any or all of the cash of an obligor
in the deposit fund, and any income realized thereon,
as part of the Secretary's recovery against the obligor
in case of a default by the obligor on an obligation.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XII--WAR RISK INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1214. The authority of the Secretary to provide
insurance and reinsurance under this title shall expire June
30, [2000] 2005.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 3302 OF TITLE 46, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 3302. Exemptions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(l)(1) The Secretary may issue a permit exempting the
following vessels from the requirements of this part for
passenger vessels so long as the vessels are owned by nonprofit
organizations and operated as nonprofit memorials to merchant
mariners:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) The steamship Jeremiah O'Brien (United States
official number 243622), [owned by the United States
Maritime Administration.] owned by the National Liberty
Ship Memorial, Inc.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1305 OF THE PANAMA CANAL ACT OF 1979
dissolution of commission
Sec. 1305. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5)(A) Amounts in the Fund may not be obligated or expended
in any fiscal year unless the obligation or expenditure is
specifically authorized by law.
(B) The office established by subsection (b) is authorized to
expend or obligate funds from the Fund for the purposes
enumerated in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A) until
October 1, 2004.
* * * * * * *
Additional Views of Roscoe Bartlett, Gene Taylor and Joseph R. Pitts
We strongly support the committee's action to improve
modernization, quality of life and readiness deficiencies that
are so desperately needed. There are however, two issues which
we believe deserve special attention.
First, the committee rejected an amendment that would have
stricken the section of the bill that permits the use of
taxpayer dollars for the purpose of killing preborn babies
conceived through rape or incest.
Abortion services are already available to Servicewomen and
dependents at military hospitals. However, the Department of
Defense has had a long standing policy of only using taxpayer
dollars to finance an abortion if the life of the mother was in
danger. This policy has been in effect since 1984 and no one
has asked that it be changed, not the President, not the Under
Secretary for health affairs, not the Senate, no one. The
policy has worked well and their is no need for change.
There are also cost concerns. We have no idea what the cost
implications of this are. We do know that each dollar spent on
aborting unborn babies is a dollar not spent on quality of
life, health care, modernization or other funding priorities
for our troops. We made a commitment to our veterans that they
would have health care for life. Now we are telling those
veterans who are over 65 that we can not help them. It is just
too expensive. What message does this send to them? You were
willing to fight and die for your country and we have no money
for you, but we do have plenty of money to kill preborn
children. In fact, under this new policy Department of Defense
dollars can even be used to perform partial birth abortions but
not to keep our promise to America's veterans.
Babies conceived in rape or incest are babies nonetheless.
They should not be executed because of the crime of a parent
and taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a service that
they find morally repugnant. Furthermore, there is no
demonstrated need for taxpayer funded abortion in cases of rape
or incest. The public has long supported the use of taxpayer
dollars for abortion only in life-endangerment cases. This
section of the bill must be stricken during the House/Senate
Conference committee.
Secondly, we are pleased that the committee authorized the
National Guard Youth Challenge program at the level requested
by the President. During the FY99 Defense Authorization bill
the committee hastily placed a $50 million cap on the program.
The amount requested for Challenge this year was $62.5 million.
The committee wisely increased the cap on the program to that
$62.5 million figure. It is our sincere hope that the House/
Senate conference committee will authorize Challenge at the $62
million without any restrictions on future funding.
The Challenge program is designed to improve the life
skills and employment potential of high school dropouts.
Challenge is a 22 week program that is conducted in a
disciplined and quasi-military environment. In its six years
since the program began, the Challenge program has yielded
tremendous success. Challenge participants perform an average
of 78 hours of community service while in the program. The
average Challenge participant experienced a 1.1 grade level
increase in reading and a 1.65 increase in math grade level.
The retention rate for the Challenge program is higher than the
national high school retention rate. And finally, at graduation
from the Challenge program 24% of the participants were placed
in jobs, 23% were going to post secondary education programs,
10% had enlisted in the military, 6% were heading to VOTECH
program and 26% were pending notification of acceptance from
employers, the military and education institutions. Taken
together, 96% of graduates had made positive steps to overcome
the potential hardships they were facing as high school
dropouts.
The Challenge program is a very important program that
continues to be an investment in young people with positive
potential to continue to return dividends over the long term.
It is a great example of how the military can have a positive
effect over the community. The Challenge program currently
operates in 26 states and seven additional states have applied
to participate in the program next year. Those states are
Indiana, Nebraska, Florida, South Dakota, Kansas, Washington
and New Mexico. In order to allow these states to participate
in the successes of Challenge, we can not allow a funding cap
to remain in place.
Roscoe Bartlett.
Gene Taylor.
Joseph Pitts.
Additional Views of Patrick J. Kennedy
The Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS), is a
joint U.S Navy and Air Force program that will provide
worldwide, real time coordinated combat readiness/proficiency
training of all air and sea-based forces using a combination of
simulated and real targets.
I view with grave concern the consequences of any action
taken that causes unnecessary taxpayer expenditures and further
disrupts the deployment of JTCTS training capability to the
warfighter. The JTCTS program was funded as requested in the
President's Budget, however I supported the requirement to add
$14.0 million to the FY2000 budget.
It is imperative that an increase of $6.0 million for
research and devlopment is provided to accelerate the overall
fielding schedule for fixed ranges and battle group exercises.
Likewise, $8.0 million is required to support production
specifically to manufacture one additional JTCTS mobile system.
As HR 1401 continues on its legislative course, I hope the
JTCTS is funded to accelerate the overall fielding schedule for
fixed ranges and battle group exercises in the FY00 budget.
Production charges will also assist getting the JTCTS to the
warfighters in the Navy and Air Force.
Patrick J. Kennedy,
Member of Congress.
Additional Views on the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill
We regret the Committee's failure to follow the
recommendation of the Military Personnel Subcommittee to repeal
the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military
hospitals and restore the law to what it was for many years. If
enacted, women stationed overseas would be permitted to use
their own funds to obtain abortion services. No federal funds
would have been used and health care professionals who are
opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or
moral principle would not be required to do so.
This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Servicewomen and
military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special
treatment, only the right to receive the same legally protected
medical services that women in the United States receive. We
had the opportunity to finally put a stop to the misguided law
that has endangered our servicewomen's lives for far too long.
It is unfortunate that the full committee did not follow the
subcommittee's direction.
The Department of Defense, American Public Health
Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America have all indicated
their support for the subcommittee's decision.
If we are to attract the best and brightest of our nation's
young people to our Armed Forces we must act to restore this
fundamental right. We cannot expect to attain our readiness and
recruitment goals when potential soldiers know they will not
have the same right to access to health care when they are
stationed overseas.
It is our responsibility to restore the right of freedom of
choice to women serving overseas in our nation's Armed Forces.
Members of the military and their families already give up many
freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country. They
should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health or
their basic constitutional rights because of a policy with no
valid military purpose.
Loretta Sanchez.
Lane Evans.
Robert A. Brady.
Thomas H. Allen.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Neil Abercrombie.
Mike Thompson.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
Rod R. Blagojevich.
Additional Views of Congressman Ike Skelton
H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000, is an excellent bill which deserves the
support of the Members of the House. I want to commend Chairman
Floyd Spence and the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Members
for their leadership and diligence in putting this legislation
together. The overwhelming 55-1 vote of approval for this bill
in Committee demonstrates that they were successful in their
efforts to draft a truly bipartisan measure reflecting the
consensus among Members of both parties for an increase in
defense spending.
H.R. 1401 is a very strong bill for U.S. national security,
which builds upon the President's proposal to increase defense
spending by $112 billion over the next six years--a good
starting point for a much needed long-term increase in defense
spending. It makes vital readiness and modernization
improvements which will keep our forces the best trained and
the best equipped in the world. But most important, the bill
addresses quality of life issues that are at the top of the
agenda for service members and their families.
For some time now, I have been saying that we must make
this the ``Year of the Troops.'' This bill goes a long way
toward showing the men and women in our military that we are
committed to taking care of them and taking care of their
families. The compensation package, which includes a 4.8
percent pay raise, pay table reform to further increase pay for
mid-grade officers and NCOs, and reform of the retirement
system, will help address problems our Armed Forces have been
experiencing in recruiting and retention. The bill's provisions
extending current pay and bonus authorities and expanding
recruiting and retention bonus and special pay authorities for
specific skills will also help in this area, as will other
much-needed quality of life provisions in the bill, including
improvements in the TRICARE military health care system, and an
increase in funding for military family housing. These pay
increases and quality of life improvements are essential to
ensuring a decent standard of living for our military personnel
and their families.
In addition to the quality of life improvements, I am
pleased that H.R. 1401 includes increases in funding for the
procurement of weapons, ammunition, and equipment, for research
and development, and for operations and maintenance, so that we
can modernize our forces while maintaining a high level of
readiness and training. In the procurement area, precision
weapons and munitions were appropriately emphasized.
My only reservation about H.R. 1401 concerns the
Committee's provision relating to operations in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. I will address this issue, along with a
number of my colleagues, in separate Additional Views.
Ike Skelton.
Additional Views on FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 1401
We regret that the committee included section 1006. We
understand and agree with the fundamental intent of the
provision, to protect the FY 2000 defense budget, especially
individual service readiness accounts, from another unfunded
contingency. The current combat operations in Yugoslavia were
not contemplated late last year when the Department of Defense
was putting together its budget submission which it sent to the
Congress early this year. Paragraph (b) of section 1006
requires the President to submit a supplemental appropriations
request to pay for any such operation in FY 2000.
Our concern is with paragraph (a), which prohibits the use
of funds in FY 2000 for the purpose of conducting combat or
peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
We believe it sends the wrong message to Slobodan Milosevic and
to our forces now engaged in combat operations.
The May 20th edition of the Washington Post described our
work by saying, ``The House Armed Services Committee voted to
impose new spending restrictions on President Clinton's conduct
of the military operation in Yugoslovia.'' Milosevic may get
the impression that he merely has to wait until October 1, 1999
and that U.S. participation in military operations over
Yugoslavia will end at that time. Our personnel engaged in
military operations may wonder about the mixed signals that
Congress is sending once again.
Our colleague, Gene Taylor, offered an amendment during
full committee mark up. He did so with the intent to protect
the defense budget. The amendment eliminated paragraph (a) and
required the President to submit to the Congress, not later
than October 1, 1999, a supplemental appropriations request for
``such amounts as necessary for the costs during fiscal year
2000 of any combat or peacekeeping operation in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.'' There would be no message here for
Slobodan Milosevic to misinterpret.
As H.R. 1401 continues on its legislative course, we hope
that section 1006 can be improved to address the concerns we
have with the current provision.
Ike Skelton.
Norman Sisisky.
John M. Spratt, Jr.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Owen Pickett.
Lane Evans.
Gene Taylor.
Neil Abercrombie.
Martin T. Meehan.
Robert A. Underwood.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
Rod R. Blagojevich.
Silvestre Reyes.
Thomas H. Allen.
Jim Turner.
Adam Smith.
Loretta Sanchez.
James H. Maloney.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Robert A. Brady.
Robert E. Andrews.
Baron P. Hill.
Mike Thompson.
John B. Larson.
Additional Views of James M. Talent
army logistics modernization
Over the past nearly two years, the Army has attempted to
develop a plan for how to comprehensively modernize its
logistics system, the process by which it supports its
installations and, more importantly, its deployed forces. As I
have stated previously, no one should dispute the need to
undertake this important action. The proper question is not
whether to modernize. To the contrary, the central question
should be what level of risk is acceptable during that eight to
ten year process.
A central focus of the larger effort centers on two small
agencies, the Logistics Systems Support Center (LSSC), located
in St. Louis, and the Industrial Logistics Systems Center
(ILSC), located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Together, LSSC
and ILSC are each responsible for designing, maintaining and
upgrading major business and logistics software operating
systems that support the Army Materiel Command (AMC), the Army,
and DoD.
LSSC maintains the Command Commodity Standard System
(CCSS), while ILSC maintains the Standard Depot System (SDS).
Collectively, these two systems underpin the Army's 24-hour-
per-day logistics efforts both stateside and overseas. In
principle, their function is not unlike that of the software
system that automatically requisitions, for example, retail
stock for stores within the Wal-Mart chain. As items are
purchased, or as supplies are expended, the system tabulates
these facts and automatically reorders. The successful
operation of these systems, from anyone's standpoint, is
central to the Army's day-to-day operations and, to a lesser
extent, the other services. If CCSS and SDS do not operate as
required, the Army doesn't either.
Neither system utilizes the up-to-date features and
logistics processes that today's modern, private-sector support
systems employ. The Army describes CCSS and SDS as ``complex,
tightly integrated systems that are unique to the Army and
difficult to maintain.'' That description is certainly
appropriate. CCSS alone is one of the largest operating system
in the world, containing over 10 million lines of computer
code, most of it written in COBOL 74. In addition, it has
external interfaces, or bridges, to the computer systems of
nearly 70 separate DoD agencies. SDS contains over 12 million
lines of code and interfaces with two dozen DoD agencies. Both
systems are 30 years old, and even though they have been
substantially enhanced over that period, they must be
modernized.
Yet any modernization effort must first and foremost take
into account the complexity of the task.
In short, (1) these two systems play a central role in the
Army's logistics operations in peace and war, (2) they are
extraordinarily complex systems, (3) they must be modernized,
(4) modernization will require almost a decade by the Army's
own determination, and (5) that modernization these systems
entails great risk.
The real question is not whether CCSS and SDS should or
should not be modernized. The answer to that question is very
clear. The question we must ask is how to mitigate risk
throughout the process in order to protect readiness.
The Army proposes to modernize CCSS and SDS by turning the
effort over to a private-sector contractor. Everyone involved
concedes that the Army lacks the technical expertise to design
its own system. Unfortunately, it is also clear that after
nearly two years of study the Army lacks even a clear
conceptual framework of what logistics processes will best
support Force XXI or the Army After Next. In brief, the service
intends to turn over to a contractor (1) the responsibility of
analyzing and determining its logistics requirements, (2)
developing new logistics processes that take advantage of cost-
saving commercial practices, (3) designing an upgraded CCSS
system, and then (4) integrating that new system into the
Army's day-to-day operations. This process, using the Army's
own analysis, is expected to take as long as ten years.
My primary concern is readiness. Under any scenario,
logistics modernization as it relates to CCSS and SDS will be
divided into three overlapping phases: (1) sustaining the old
system, (2) development of a new operating system, and (3)
transitioning from the old system to the new. Throughout most
of this process, given the central role of both systems to Army
readiness, it is essential that the system remain fully
operational until some replacement is defined, developed and
running properly.
Under the Army plan, the same information technology
specialists and logisticians who have maintained CCSS for 30
years are to be released one year after a prime contractor
takes over the LSSC and ILSC centers next May. Most of these
same people will undoubtedly find private-sector employment.
COBOL programmers in St. Louis can readily find employment. And
that is the problem: how can we operate CCSS, and by extension
support soldier readiness when these key personnel are gone? As
the Army has stated, the only people who have the expertise to
maintain CCSS are the very people performing that mission
today. The Army is counting on them being hired by the
contractor, but there is no guarantee or agreement to that
effect. Many will go to work in the private sector. A good
number of employees are simply tired of how they have been
treated throughout this process. Some workers will retire.
Still others will transfer through priority placement to other
federal agencies in order to retain their pension benefits.
My amendment directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
LSSC and ILSC with the opportunity to reduce their respective
centers to their ``most efficient organizations'' or MEOs. I
expect that in St. Louis this would involve the loss of
approximately 100 of 300 positions. Each MEO would then partner
with the eventual log mod prime contractor and work with them--
as a team--through the sustainment and transition phases of
CCSS and SDS modernization, gradually reducing their numbers
proportionate to what percentage of the old system was still
being utilized. In this manner the MEO will ``sunset'' as their
mission is eclipsed by the prime's newer logistics system.
Using this approach, we provide the Army with the necessary
readiness 'safety net.' Given the complexity of the current, or
legacy, systems, and the difficulties experienced during
previous projects of a similar nature, it is entirely likely
that any prime contractor will not go smoothly. Through this
approach, we will still have on hand the Army's only subject
matter experts in sufficient numbers to keep the system running
and, more importantly, to support our soldiers. My amendment in
no way impedes the Army's efforts to privatize this function.
Nor would it delay the effort. It does, however, retain at
least a safety net for these two centers so that readiness is
protected.
James M. Talent.
Additional Views of James M. Talent
the navy's f/a-18e/f super hornet
The House Armed Services Committee has reviewed the F/A-
18E/F Super Hornet program in some considerable level of detail
as it has progressed through each phase of Engineering and
Manufacturing Development (EMD). In each of the previous three
conference reports the Committee has fully supported Navy's
requests for low-rate initial production of 12, 20 and 30
aircraft, respectively. In their Fiscal Year 2000 budget
submission, the Navy requested 36 E/Fs and authorization for a
five-year, multi-year procurement.
The Navy's request makes good sense across the board.
First, with literally 99 percent of an exhaustive developmental
test program completed as of mid May, ``We know,'' as one test
pilot observed in the OT-IIA (operational test) debrief, ``more
accurate information about how the F/A-18E/F performs in two
years than we know about most other aircraft after 20 years of
service.'' Clearly, by any objective measure, flight testing
have been intensive--and very successful.
More importantly, regarding the E/F's operational
capabilities, Secretary Danzig and the CNO wrote in a recent
letter that the Super Hornet ``is the aircraft the Navy wants
and needs because it gives our warfighters the capability, when
compared with current aircraft, to strike twice the number of
targets in half the time, while substantially reducing expected
losses.'' And in recent testimony before the Committee, Rear
Admiral Nathman, Director, Air Warfare, was unequivocal in his
support for the aircraft and for multi-year procurement. In
terms of the fleet--where it matters most--these statements,
and the facts that back them up, effectively say all that need
be said.
Finally, the Super Hornet EMD program is one of only a very
few such programs in recent memory to remain below its
congressionally mandated cost caps while at the same time
meeting schedule, weight and the performance requirements of
the service.
The Committee's decision to approve the Navy's Fiscal Year
2000 procurement of 36 aircraft continues a very feasible ramp-
up in production. Its further authorization of multi-year
procurement pending successful completion of OpEval and
achievement of milestone III/recommendation for full-rate
production, and the Secretary's assurance of identified savings
through multi-year procurement, ensures good value to the
American taxpayer and makes for sound defense policy.
James M. Talent.
Additional Views of Gene Taylor on H.R. 1401, The National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 2000
The bill reported from committee is, in my estimation,
worthy of support, and I voted for final passage. It is an
important piece of legislation that will contribute to the
defense of our nation. Also, in the words of our committee
ranking member, Ike Skelton, the measure will go a long way
toward making this the ``year of the troops.'' I feel
additionally that the military construction titles of this bill
were prepared in such a way that this important aspect of
defense spending will have avoided a serious catastrophe as
represented in the underfunded Presidential budget request.
However, I feel compelled to express my extreme
disappointment with one section of the bill. I tried to offer
an amendment to remove Section 1006 from the bill. I believe
this provision will send the wrong message to both our
adversary in Serbia and to our own troops who have been sent to
the Balkans. Perhaps an unintended consequence of this section
is that it will set a date certain for the removal of American
military presence.
In essence, paragraph (a) of this section would tell
President Milosevic to hang on until October 1, 1999, and no
funds would be available for US military operations in
Yugoslavia after that date. Nothing can be more harmful to our
negotiating position, our military strategy, or the morale of
our troops than to send this sort of message.
Paragraph (b), in my opinion, says that Congress refuses to
fulfill its duty to provide for our troops as stated in Article
1, section 8, of the Constitution. With the enactment of this
section, we will have instead delegated that responsibility to
the President of the United States. This is an abdication of
our responsibilities as members of Congress, and does further
harm to this institution by continuing to add further precedent
to the notion that the President, not the Congress, has the
right and responsibility to declare war.
My amendment was straightforward. It would have required
the President to submit to the Congress, not later than October
1, 1999, a supplemental appropriations request for ``such
amounts as necessary for the costs during fiscal year 2000 of
any combat or peacekeeping operation in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.'' Under my amendment, Congress would still retain
the authority to determine when and where to commit our forces,
and no one would have questions about our nation's resolve or
its support for our troops.
During the debate on my amendment, I warned that the press
would ignore all of the good contained in this important
legislation and report only that Congress had cut funds for
troops in the field. Unfortunately, as I feared, the May 20,
1999, Washington Post contained an article titled ``Lawmakers
Vote to Limit War Powers.'' The lead sentence of the article
reads, ``The House Armed Services Committee voted to impose new
spending restrictions on President Clinton's conduct of the
military operation in Yugoslavia.''
While I disagree with the committee's decision to retain
section 1006, I sincerely hope that the provision may be
improved to address the real concerns I have referenced above.
Gene Taylor.
Additional Views of Robert A. Underwood on Re-establishing The 54th
Weather Reconnaissance Squadron in Guam
The 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (WRS) was once
based out of Andersen, AFB, Guam. The group was famed for its
squadron of ``Typhoon Chasers'' that flew into emerging and
verified Pacific typhoons. Sharing this responsibility for a
time, there was also a Navy Airborne Early Warning Squadron
based at the Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam flying the Navy's
weather reconnaissance aircraft. This valuable and brave team
of pilots, aviators, airmen and technicians provided accurate
early-warnings for Guam, Hawaii and neighboring Pacific nations
of impending typhoons.
In the late 1980s, these units were inactivated when it was
deemed too costly to justify. The underlying decision was based
on the deactivation of several air force wings at Andersen,
AFB, the WRS was no longer needed. Defense officials claimed
that since there were no aircraft assets permanently stationed
there its mission could not be justified. Furthermore, it was
maintained that improved weather imagery reconnaissance
satellites would be adequate to protect the remaining military
assets and the civilian population.
There is today, one squadron--the 53rd WRS (an air force
reserve unit) located at Keesler, AFB--performing the vital
function of flying into and tracking hurricanes on America's
eastern seaboard, the gulf coast, Hawaii, and areas east of the
international dateline. Members of Congress have found it
desirable to continue to fund and maintain this squadron to
supplement the weather satellites, which have limited
capabilities. However, in the Western Pacific there is
currently no such capability.
Guam is geographically located in an area known to
meteorologists as ``typhoon alley.'' Guam depends on
information and typhoon warning from the Navy's Joint Typhoon
Warning Center (JTWC) and the National Weather Service (NWS),
along with satellite information to warn its population of an
on-coming storm. The JTWC, once located on Guam, is now located
in Hawaii.
The data that is collected by the ``typhoon hunters'' is
invaluable. It is very accurate as it provides exact location,
temperature, barometric pressure and windspeed of the typhoon
or hurricane. The collective information the WRS WC-130's
provide, improves the accuracy of computer models. Used in
conjunction with weather satellites, the data can save
thousands of lives and millions of dollars in property damage.
In the case of an island, accurate notice of a typhoon can make
all the difference. Often a severe typhoon devastates an
island's port facilities, thus hampering recovery as a port is
an island's economic and transportation lifeline.
Nationwide 1500 people a day relocate to coastal areas,
thus making accurate storm forecasting all the more vital. We
in Congress have a responsibility to ensure that every means
necessary be employed to protect our coastal and island
citizens. There are countless numbers of Americans living in
the Western Pacific who today do not enjoy the security and
science afforded by a WRS, while the remainder of the nation
does. The Air Force and the JTWC should study this inequity. I
strongly urge the reactivation of a Weather Reconnaissance
Squadron in the Western Pacific.
Robert A. Underwood.
Additional Views of Robert A. Underwood, Lane Evans, Norman Sisisky,
Thomas H. Allen, Solomon P. Ortiz, & Neil Abercrombie on the Department
of Defense and OMB Circular A-76
It has long been a concern of ours that the Department of
Defense (DoD) has placed so high a stake in the outsourcing and
privatization process known as OMB Circular A-76. This year DoD
has announced that by FY05 over 230,000 positions will have
been studied for possible outsourcing. The department estimates
that they will have saved some $11.2 billion and achieve a
steady state savings rate, beginning in FY05, of approximately
$3.4 billion annually. The problem with touting numbers such as
these are the are based on too many assumptions. Indeed the
individual services often do not account for the cost of
performing the study, especially when they extol their
anticipated savings. These costs can include the paying of the
cost-comparison study itself as well as associated costs for
voluntary separation incentive pay, early retirement benefits,
and general reductions in forces (RiFs).
Utilizing the Quadrennial Defense Review as the progenitor,
DoD is conveniently provided with a mandate to plow the
anticipated savings back into modernization projects. The
department is fond of claiming that through the synthesis of
private sector innovations into government operational
practices they will be able to mete out ``the best value'' for
the taxpayer. Interestingly, best value is not necessarily the
lowest cost.
To be fair, the department claims that the entire point of
a commercial activities study is to determine if the function
will be performed ``in-house'', by government employees, or
outsourced to private contractors. Should it be determined that
the best value requires a function to remain ``in-house'' there
it shall remain for a while--it can be re-studied a few years
later. Indeed the department claims the study will wrest out
savings regardless because the ``in-house'' team will have had
to become more effective in order to compete with the private
sector.
This point harkens the DoD initiative called Defense Reform
Initiative Directive #20 (DRID #20). This initiative created
the complete inventory review of each military service's
functions, to determine what positions are classified as
inherently governmental, and thus be available for possible
outsourcing. DRID #20 determined that 228,000 military
positions were non-inherently governmental and therefore could
be studied. Yet in what amounts to a mixed signal by DoD, an
order was made to re-examine several of the areas previously
slated as non-inherently governmental. DoD's apparent
apprehension was caused by the fear that this drastic measure
may be undercutting vital support and combat service functions
in the name of savings. This, ironically, is the same argument
that many members of Congress have been making for years.
Finally, our beleaguered civil servants are beginning to
emerge as an endangered species. As times and practices change,
they too, will have to adapt in order to remain relevant in the
national defense arena. In spite of this they should not have
to endure negative fallout as a result of the DoD's panacea
called outsourcing, notwithstanding their own admitted
skepticism. The DoD must do better in bridging the benefits gap
to alleviate displaced employees especially when, inevitably,
many will lose their livelihoods.
In the end, all that DoD may be left with is reduced
readiness, a degraded military capability, and an exiled civil-
service workforce that collectively contributes to the
weakening of America's national security policy.
Neil Abercrombie.
Norman Sisisky.
Lane Evans.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Thomas H. Allen.
Robert A. Underwood.
Supplemental Views of Congressman Ciro D. Rodriguez
I am deeply concerned with the language added by amendment
in committee to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY
2000 requiring the Air Force to prematurely identify the core
logistics capability requirements for maintenance and repair of
the C-17 aircraft. This myopic provision would force the Air
Force to make a hasty decision on the long-term maintenance of
the C-17 possibly resulting in an incorrect and costly
maintenance concept.
Similar language requiring an Air Force report was included
in last year's authorization bill. The Air Force provided the
required report on the C-17 outlining the service's plan to
establish core capabilities for the aircraft. As part of that
plan, the Air Force will review the current contract
maintenance strategy (Flexible Sustainment) in 2003 to make the
long-term support decision. Since initial production of the C-
17 is scheduled through fiscal year 2005 with continuing
improvements to the plane, now is not the time to make a final,
and possibly wasteful, organic capabilities decision based upon
an evolving aircraft.
Contrary to the language in question, the Air Force is in
compliance regarding the C-17 with Title 10 United States Code
2464 provisions necessitating an organic core logistics
capability. The Air Force determines core capabilities on
commodities rather than weapon systems, e.g., a landing gear
versus the entire C-17 aircraft. In the report required by last
year's authorization bill, the Air Force clearly stated its
organic capability to maintain the commodities of the C-17 due
to the capability to support other large military transports,
such as the C-141, C-135, and C-130.
Currently, the C-17 is provided maintenance support under
an interim contract between the Air Force and the Boeing
Company, the plane's manufacturer. By every measure the current
Flexible Sustainment maintenance contract of the C-17 is an
overwhelming success. Last year, the Air Force saved tens of
millions of dollars in either cost avoidance or reduced
expenses when compared to the budget allocated for C-17
support. The contractor continues to perform at less than
negotiated contract cost.
Current C-17 logistics performance is setting a new
standard for airlifters. The C-17 is the airlifter of choice
because it is ready when needed and reliable when called upon.
In the current Balkans operations the C-17 has a 96% mission
capable rate. This extremely high rate is in spite of flying
150% of the missions of the C-141, C-5, and C-130 combined. In
addition, despite the sudden surge of activity due to the
Kosovo operations, the contractor has responded whenever
needed, including oversees deployments with the C-17.
I am deeply concerned the language requiring the Air Force
to identify, by February 1, 2000, the core logistics capability
requirements for maintenance and repair of the C-17 aircraft
would impose a hasty decision upon the Air Force and preclude
the service from making the best long-term maintenance decision
on the C-17.
Ciro D. Rodriguez.
Dissenting Views of Cynthia A. McKinney
With some reservation I oppose reporting this bill out of
committee. To be sure, the chairman's mark contains provision
that I strongly support, including the cooperative threat
reduction programs with the states of the former Soviet Union,
increased pay for members of the uniformed services and
increases in benefits for veterans.
Although I oppose this bill, I want to acknowledge and
commend the hard work of my colleagues and the committee staff
for their sincere efforts to provide for the common defense.
I also acknowledge that not all of the excesses in military
spending in this bill are the fault of the committee. The House
Armed Services Committee is charged with the responsibility to
provide the armed forces with the resources to achieve their
mission. That mission calls on the military to be prepared to
fight two significant wars at the same time, without allies and
while maintaining a credible reserve. In effect, the mission
calls upon us to maintain a cold-war era military and its
incumbent cost irrespective of any realistic assessment of
threat. We also maintain, at tremendous expense, a cold war
nuclear arsenal.
I strongly believe we must leave behind the military
structure and devices that we depended upon to win the cold
war. Yet this years budget includes the Presidents request for
the largest increase in military spending since the end of the
cold war. On top of that, we have added an emergency
supplemental appropriation loaded with pork that takes funds
from social security, low-income housing and nutrition
programs. Frankly, I find that appalling.
In my dissent of the National Defense Authorization Act of
1999, I wrote: ``. . . this authorization is only part of the
defense spending. The Congress just passed the supplemental
emergency appropriation that provides additional spending for
our forces in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf. As well, the
emergency appropriation bill became a vehicle by which a new
ballistic missile system was paid for. This additional spending
of 2.9 billion not only fills out of the budget agreement, but
important domestic programs were cut in order to pay for it. I
am deeply disturbed that this might become our practice for
supporting out military activities.''
Obviously, my concerns were well founded. I remain deeply
concerned that the supplementals are becoming the budget
gimmick of choice for loading political pork into the military
budget.
It is clear to me that our national security cannot be
measured in bombers alone. I believe out national security
depends equally on our domestic programs and on constructive
foreign policy initiatives.
We can no longer continue to spend nearly half of all
federal discretionary dollars on military programs. This
misplaced priority compromises our national security by
shortchanging our investments in programs that make for real
security--a healthy, well-educated, properly housed citizenry.
My good friend Joe Volk, Executive Secretary of the Friends
Committee on National Legislation is right on the mark in his
May 21 letter thanking me for opposing Committee's version of
the FY2000 Defense Authorization bill. He wrote:
Dear Cynthia: We at the Friends Committee on National
Legislation (FCNL) recognize you as one of the only members who
has critically examined this new tide of increased military
spending, and one of the only members who acknowledges existing
opportunities to achieve both increased security and
significant savings in the current military budget through
changes in U.S. foreign and military policies and spending
choices.
As the sole member of the Armed Services Committee to vote
against the bill, you alone have addressed the important
questions about U.S. military and security policy.
Does the U.S. really need a military that is big enough to
simultaneously fight two major regional wars alone? In
practice, most threats to international security today are
handled through cooperative efforts by regional alliances or
through the UN Security Council--not unilateral action.
Why does the U.S. need to continue to station 100,000
troops in Europe? The cold war is over, and Europe is quite
capable of defending itself.
Why is the U.S. spending $35 billion per year maintaining
over 6,000 nuclear weapons on high alert against an enemy that
no longer exists?
Why should the U.S. spend another $11 billion on a missile
``defense'' system that is technologically infeasible and
strategically destabilizing? Investing a fraction of this on
arms control and disarmament initiatives could do far more to
preserve U.S. security.
Why not close the military bases that the Department of
Defense (DOD) no longer needs and support converting them into
profitable commercial and industrial centers?
Why should the DOD get more money when it cannot match over
$22 billion in expenditures with obligations, it cannot find
over $9 billion worth of inventory, and it continues to give
away millions in overpayments to contractors? More money is not
the answer to Pentagon waste.
Courageous leadership will one day change key U.S. foreign
and military policies. Then, many of the current excuses for
increasing military spending will disappear and significant
budgetary savings can be achieved.
End the obsolete and provocative U.S. cold war military
strategy and reduce U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere
accordingly. Invest instead in developing multilateral civil
institutions such as the Organization for Cooperation and
Security in Europe (OSCE).
Begin immediately to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to
START II levels, take these weapons of mass destruction off of
high alert, and support programs that assist the Russians in
safely dismantling their nuclear weapons systems.
Stop bombing Serbia and Kosovo. Bombing has failed to stop
the genocide. In fact, the bombing has fueled the fire and made
the task of finding a just, lasting, political solution more
difficult and costly for all who live there.
Stop exporting advanced weapons systems and production
facilities to other countries. Then the U.S. will no longer be
compelled to compete against its own advanced weapons abroad.
Control and reduce the international supply of military
weapons. Weapons transfers by the U.S. and other countries have
fueled violent conflicts around the world, creating
humanitarian tragedies and causing a boomerang effect against
U.S. military personnel and UN peacekeepers.
Pay U.S. arrears and dues to the UN in full and on time,
and strengthen and reform the UN system so that it can play a
more effective role in preventing violent conflicts.
These steps would reduce costs to the U.S. government by
more than $40 billion per year and greatly enhance U.S. and
global security. Also, other governments will likely respond
positively in kind to such initiatives, reducing their own
military spending. More money would go to basic human needs and
economic trade and development. Perhaps most importantly, many
of these actions would reduce tensions with the Russian and
Chinese governments.
Congress and the President would do well to listen to your
``voice in the wilderness'' before they launch what could
become another, more dangerous and destabilizing global arms
race. True, sustainable human security can be achieved at much
less cost by redirecting military spending to meeting human
needs at home and abroad and by investing and participating in
cooperative international institutions and processes that
protect human rights and prevent violent conflicts. Thank you
for your conscientious stand for real security at home and
abroad. Sincerely, Joe Volk.
I would like to thank my friends at FCNL and the many other
non-government organizations that work with me to bring about
sensible budget priorities and real security through my work on
the House Armed Services Committee. Peace.
Cynthia McKinney.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
